Games over .500 = lame

by thrill000 on Aug 13, 2008 8:12 AM PDT Comment 28 comments

So the Angels are 32 games over .500. Great. Awesome. What does that even mean? It makes no sense. This is something that has always bothered me, and I'm not even a stat head.

By using the current method of Wins - Losses, we're saying .500 is however many loses a team has and however many more wins they have equals "games over .500". 32 games over .500 would mean .500 for the Angels is 43-43, but they've played 118 games, not 86.

The formula of Wins - Losses is quick an easy, but it really doesn't say much. We should be dividing that number by 2. That would give us a truer "games over .500" number. After 118 games a .500 team would be 59-59. If the Angels have 75 wins, then would should be 16 games over .500.

(W-L)/2 It just makes sense.

Does anyone really care though?

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

not me anyways

GA GA he's the man, if he can't do it, no one can

by Moondoggy on Aug 13, 2008 8:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

For me, it is more a "finger in the wind" measure

for approximately how a team might finish the season.

A .500 record at the end of the season would be 81/81. Unless you belong within the NL West, this does not make the playoffs.

Normally, you need about 90 wins to be in contention and that would be about 10 games over .500.

95 wins gives a team a good lock on the Division title, so playing at 15 games or better over .500 provides a sense how secure the teams playoff chances might be.

100 wins gives a team a shot at the best record in baseball – bragging rights for the year at least, if not home field advantage throughout the playoffs. That would be 20 games over .500

120 wins gives a team a shot at one of the best records in history. Bragging right.s for certain. So once a team gets up in the 40 games over .500 mark, there is a slightly different level of interest.

So, for me, “games over .500”, using the standard math is a fast and simple tool for how the team is projecting towards their final record.

It is absolutely true that their are funny things about the math, but those math problems are tossed out precisely because they complicate the mental shortcut that the measurement serves.

Francisco Rodriguez: 192 career saves. 2 career Panthers, tied with Hector Carrasco.

by Stirrups on Aug 13, 2008 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Just to mess with your math

90 wins is 18 games over .500, using standard (wins – losses) math. (90 – 72 record for the season)

100 wins is 38 games over .500.

120 wins would be 120 – 42, or 78 games over .500.

I agree that the standard way of calculating games over .500 is useful for precisely the reason you’ve outlined: it’s a good, quick, simple way of estimating the number of wins over an entire season, which is a good, quick, simple way of figuring out whether a team is in contention for the postseason.

by Brew Angel on Aug 13, 2008 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you beat me to it!

Open the damn box, Peter!

by thrill000 on Aug 13, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Crap. Brainfarted over my own attempt at simplicity.

Francisco Rodriguez: 192 career saves. 2 career Panthers, tied with Hector Carrasco.

by Stirrups on Aug 13, 2008 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

your examples...

are not the formula used now.

If you won 90 games (72 loses), you would be 18 games over .500 (90-72).
If you won 100 games, you would be 38 games over .500.

So 120 wins means 78 games over .500! That’s a record of 120-42. We’re not even close to that pace.

If we finished the season 32 games over .500, we would be 97-65. We’re actually on pace to win 103 games, which would be 44 games over .500.

I agree with the measuring stick take, I just think the measuring stick needs to be cut in half. :)

Open the damn box, Peter!

by thrill000 on Aug 13, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This really is a useless fanpost...

Fire Mickey Hatcher

by thrill000 on Aug 13, 2008 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

+1

Go Angels!

by Four Ts on Aug 13, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

infinity

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Aug 15, 2008 3:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

your right

nobody cares

by Rycat512 on Aug 13, 2008 10:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I care...

Like I care how Shaq’s ass tastes

by melvintoast on Aug 13, 2008 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

the way this is calculated is inconsistent and therefore ridiculous. Let us take a real world example: On July 1, 2008, the Diamondbacks led the NL West with a 42-42 record (at .500), but the Dodgers were 2.5 games back at 39-44; yet we say the Dodgers were five games under .500, which is ridiculous.

Witty .sig goes here.

by scareduck on Aug 13, 2008 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

perfect example

Fire Mickey Hatcher... oh wait

by thrill000 on Aug 13, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're close...

If you factor two teams’ “games over .500” and then divide the difference by two, you have but one way to factor GB in the standings.

(The Angels are 32 “games above .500,” The Rangers are 2 “games above .500.” The difference in the standings is 30/2 = 15 GB).

I’m not sure if that’s the origin, but I’ve always found that the quickest way to factor GB on the fly.

by GarretSaysSuckIt on Aug 13, 2008 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

to me...

dividing “games over/under .500” by 2 keeps it consistent with “games back”.

Fire Mickey Hatcher... oh wait

by thrill000 on Aug 13, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I must be missing something...

that doesn’t make any sense.

by GarretSaysSuckIt on Aug 13, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This fan post

is the baseball equivalent of being 40 games under .500.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 13, 2008 12:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

and that's bad right?

just kidding of course. well said, and in a simple manner no less, which seems to go against the grain of this discussion, but it won’t be held against you.

by Rycat512 on Aug 13, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

C O N T R O V E R S Y

but kinda like that Prince song instead of a real controversy.

by Rev Halofan on Aug 13, 2008 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

who cares what the literal meaning is...

it is consistent throughout the league, which mean it equally stacks teams against one another.

"Life is a luminous halo, a semi-transparent envelope surrounding us from the beginning of consciousness to the end."

by NoDakHalo on Aug 13, 2008 1:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The reason the team is '32 games over .500'

is that that’s how many losses it would take for the team to fall to a .500 winning percentage. What .500 would be for a team with the same number of games played is irrelevant. 32 is the number we’d have to lose to get to .500 NOW.

*Visiting Angels fan* Never give up, never surrender!

by TheOptimist on Aug 13, 2008 5:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs