How to calculate "games over .500"

satchel · 11-26-2008, 05:11 PM

If a baseball team has a record of 50-54 are they four games under .500 (because they'd need four more wins to be .500) or two games under .500 (because if they'd won two of those losses, they'd be at .500)?

Tony M · 11-26-2008, 05:20 PM

The former.

Carlton_Willey · 11-26-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satchel

If a baseball team has a record of 50-54 are they four games under .500 (because they'd need four more wins to be .500) or two games under .500 (because if they'd won two of those losses, they'd be at .500)?

Four is the customary answer.

With the New Math, either answer is close enough for a B-, I think

Skipaway · 11-26-2008, 09:29 PM

But it's a language issue, not a math issue.

CHOWDERHEAD · 11-26-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

it's a language issue.

How so? In order for the team to get back to .500 from the point that they are now at, they would need to win four (4) additional games. Thus, they are four (4) games under.

Skipaway · 11-27-2008, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHOWDERHEAD

How so? In order for the team to get back to .500 from the point that they are now at, they would need to win four (4) additional games. Thus, they are four (4) games under.

Because it's about what's the definition of the phrase "game over .500".

If you define the phrase differently, then the other answer could be the right one. It's all about what's considered the norm of the language.

You translated the description into:

(50+x)/(50+54+x)=0.5 => x=4

And rejected this translation:

(50+x)/(50+54)=0.5 => x=2

Bluenoser · 11-27-2008, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

But it's a language issue, not a math issue.

Language, not math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Because it's about what's the definition of the phrase "game over .500".

If you define the phrase differently, then the other answer could be the right one. It's all about what's considered the norm of the language.

You translated the description into:

(50+x)/(50+54+x)=0.5 => x=4

And rejected this translation:

(50+x)/(50+54)=0.5 => x=2

Yep, no math there, just language.

Tony M · 11-27-2008, 04:52 AM

The method that gives 2 is basically the Games Behind value. That is applicable when comparing two teams because both have an effect on the value.

With the games over/under the goalpost is set by the chasing/being chased team hence why the minimum number of games to get to .500 is needed.

CHOWDERHEAD · 11-27-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Because it's about what's the definition of the phrase "game over .500".

If you define the phrase differently, then the other answer could be the right one. It's all about what's considered the norm of the language.

You translated the description into:

(50+x)/(50+54+x)=0.5 => x=4

And rejected this translation:

(50+x)/(50+54)=0.5 => x=2

Good stuff - thanks for clarifying

satchel · 11-27-2008, 07:11 PM

I realize that there are multiple interpretations of the expression; that was the source of my confusion. I was looking for the definition most commonly employed by sports journalism.

Thanks for the input, gents.

satchel · 11-27-2008, 07:13 PM

dola,

I made a graph of this value for a certain team, comparing two seasons, and didn't want to mislabel it.

Bluenoser · 11-27-2008, 08:16 PM

There can only be one answer. The team is 4 games under .500.

In order for them to get to .500 from where they are now (50-54), they would have to win 4 games and lose none.

CHOWDERHEAD · 11-27-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceM

There can only be one answer. The team is 4 games under .500.

In order for them to get to .500 from where they are now (50-54), they would have to win 4 games and lose none.

Same thoughts I had, but I was informed otherwise.

gary28 · 02-05-2015, 08:29 PM

I realize I'm more than 6 years late to the party, but here's my 2 cents.

I get it that we talk about a record of 20-24 as 4 games under .500 because the team must win its next 4 games in order to get to a .500 record of 24-24. However, consider the following logic check.

If a team finishes the season 81-81, it's at .500. If it finishes 80-82, it's not a matter of winning the next 2 games to get to .500 -- the season is over. It missed .500 by 1 game being a loss instead of a win, so I would say it was 1 game under .500.

By the same token, if a team went 0-162, it would be 81 games under .500 (81-81), not 162 games under .500 (162-162!)

So it really does come down to language. If a team is 20-24, we can say that it needs to win its next 4 games to get to .500 ("4 games under"). We can also say that if 2 of its losses were wins it would be at .500 ("2 games under").

The former is the context commonly used and the more interesting of the two because it contemplates future performance to get to a goal. However, it does eventually fail mathematically because the season is finite -- 162 games.

The latter simply states where the team is. Not as exciting, but mathematically correct over the entire season.

Goody · 02-06-2015, 12:28 AM

I think people are confusing it with GB which is more complicated based on how other teams do as well. If not, why is this complicated at all? I'm bad at math, but it seems the only times game under or over is tricky is if you're comparing teams not one team against a set final record...

MBarrett · 02-06-2015, 12:45 AM

Eric · 02-06-2015, 12:48 PM

Kinda reminds me of the definition for bi-weekly.

Izz · 02-06-2015, 04:52 PM

Well, looks like i've been doing it wrong this whole time. Oopsie!

Honorable_Pawn · 02-06-2015, 08:27 PM

And I get called a nerd for dressing up like a pirate

monkeystyxx · 02-10-2015, 01:45 PM

Being an idiot Brit who doesn't have a bloody clue about anything, I thought the exact same as Gary28 - Depends on when you ask.

I would call finishing 80-82 "finishing one game under .500", because if you'd won one more game, then by extension you also lose one less, making you .500.

If the season hasn't finished yet, the question is slightly different. Being 78-80 makes you two games under .500, to my mind, because you can theoretically still win both without having to change anything else.

If the season is already over, the question you're implying is "how many games that we lost, would we have had to win to get to .500?". The answer as above is only one.

If the season isn't over, the question instead becomes simply "how many games do I have to win to get to .500?". The answer as above is two.

But, as I said, I'm new to this here bat-and-ball thing.

11-26-2008, 05:11 PM	#1
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith AR Posts: 2,681	How to calculate "games over .500" If a baseball team has a record of 50-54 are they four games under .500 (because they'd need four more wins to be .500) or two games under .500 (because if they'd won two of those losses, they'd be at .500)? __________________ JL Commish NPBL Rhode Island Reds ’33 ’34 ’35 TCBA San Francisco Railbornes ’74 ’76 ’77 ’78 FL New Orleans Black Sox ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59

11-26-2008, 09:29 PM	#4
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	But it's a language issue, not a math issue. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

02-05-2015, 08:29 PM	#14
gary28 Bat Boy Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1	How to calculate "games over .500" I realize I'm more than 6 years late to the party, but here's my 2 cents. I get it that we talk about a record of 20-24 as 4 games under .500 because the team must win its next 4 games in order to get to a .500 record of 24-24. However, consider the following logic check. If a team finishes the season 81-81, it's at .500. If it finishes 80-82, it's not a matter of winning the next 2 games to get to .500 -- the season is over. It missed .500 by 1 game being a loss instead of a win, so I would say it was 1 game under .500. By the same token, if a team went 0-162, it would be 81 games under .500 (81-81), not 162 games under .500 (162-162!) So it really does come down to language. If a team is 20-24, we can say that it needs to win its next 4 games to get to .500 ("4 games under"). We can also say that if 2 of its losses were wins it would be at .500 ("2 games under"). The former is the context commonly used and the more interesting of the two because it contemplates future performance to get to a goal. However, it does eventually fail mathematically because the season is finite -- 162 games. The latter simply states where the team is. Not as exciting, but mathematically correct over the entire season.

02-06-2015, 12:28 AM	#15
Goody Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Korea Posts: 3,530	I think people are confusing it with GB which is more complicated based on how other teams do as well. If not, why is this complicated at all? I'm bad at math, but it seems the only times game under or over is tricky is if you're comparing teams not one team against a set final record... __________________ In the past: Laseron Baseball Association creator. Present: I am Rezulm on PT and OOTP Discord. Future: I wish it was the past.

02-06-2015, 04:52 PM	#18
Izz Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 2,467	Well, looks like i've been doing it wrong this whole time. Oopsie! __________________ Not only do I play OOTP but I also write science-fiction: My Website A brief history of the Australia-New Zealand Baseball League (AUNZBL 2019-2119)--A Dynasty Report The National Penterham Four-Bases Association--A Dynasty Report

11-26-2008, 05:20 PM	#2
Tony M Global Moderator Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Here Posts: 6,156 Blog Entries: 3	The former.

11-27-2008, 04:52 AM	#8
Tony M Global Moderator Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Here Posts: 6,156 Blog Entries: 3	The method that gives 2 is basically the Games Behind value. That is applicable when comparing two teams because both have an effect on the value. With the games over/under the goalpost is set by the chasing/being chased team hence why the minimum number of games to get to .500 is needed.

11-27-2008, 07:11 PM	#10
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith AR Posts: 2,681	I realize that there are multiple interpretations of the expression; that was the source of my confusion. I was looking for the definition most commonly employed by sports journalism. Thanks for the input, gents.

11-27-2008, 07:13 PM	#11
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith AR Posts: 2,681	dola, I made a graph of this value for a certain team, comparing two seasons, and didn't want to mislabel it.

11-27-2008, 08:16 PM	#12
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 13,683	There can only be one answer. The team is 4 games under .500. In order for them to get to .500 from where they are now (50-54), they would have to win 4 games and lose none.

02-06-2015, 12:45 AM	#16
MBarrett All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Canada Posts: 624

02-06-2015, 12:48 PM	#17
Eric All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: Folsom, CA Posts: 1,233	Kinda reminds me of the definition for bi-weekly.

02-06-2015, 08:27 PM	#19
Honorable_Pawn Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 6,407	And I get called a nerd for dressing up like a pirate __________________ PBA Quickstart for OOTP Background Images Collection All PBA games broadcast live on Steam.

02-10-2015, 01:45 PM	#20
monkeystyxx Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 293	Being an idiot Brit who doesn't have a bloody clue about anything, I thought the exact same as Gary28 - Depends on when you ask. I would call finishing 80-82 "finishing one game under .500", because if you'd won one more game, then by extension you also lose one less, making you .500. If the season hasn't finished yet, the question is slightly different. Being 78-80 makes you two games under .500, to my mind, because you can theoretically still win both without having to change anything else. If the season is already over, the question you're implying is "how many games that we lost, would we have had to win to get to .500?". The answer as above is only one. If the season isn't over, the question instead becomes simply "how many games do I have to win to get to .500?". The answer as above is two. But, as I said, I'm new to this here bat-and-ball thing. Last edited by monkeystyxx; 02-10-2015 at 01:47 PM.