"Games Above .500" Rant

[Ksyrup]

I know we all use this phrase as a stat when discussing team performances. But has anyone stopped to consider that it is not accurate AT ALL? The way we use this phrase, we are measuring the difference between the number of games won and lost. Not, as the phrase suggests, the difference between the number of games won or lost and the number of wins/losses if the team had a .500 record.

For example, in his article about the Cards/Mets today, Jayson Stark writes in his typical (and annoying) manner using his "blow small things out of proportion" shtick to make an issue seem bigger than it really is:

"The Mets finished this season 32 games over .500. The Cardinals staggered in at five games over .500. And when one team is 27 more games above sea level than another, it's supposed to win."

Bullshit. The Mets won 97 games. They won 32 more games than they lost, but they finished 16 games over .500. The Cardinals finished 2 games over .500, having won 83 games.

Now, his conclusion is accurate. The Mets were clearly better than the Cardinals based on the number of wins they had and should beat the Cards. But it just annoys me to no end when writers - who should know better - use an inaccurate phrase to make their point. I guess it's just become an accepted phrase that no one thinks about before using, but it does not mean what they (and we) intend for it to mean.

OK, I'm done now...

[JS19]

good call, never realized that.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Nice catch. I guess I get the idea behind the phrase, because if a team is 3 games under .500 at midseason, it means that they'll be at .500 if they win their next 3. The phrase becomes meaningless after the season ends, though. Once the season has finished, it's all about the final record. The Mets were 97-65, the Cardinals were 83-78. The difference between the teams is 13.5 games, not 27. Comparing these teams' records to .500 is pointless now.

I had never thought about that before, but it's a great point.

[Ksyrup]

I think the phrase is more often used correctly when describing a losing team's record, because there, the goal is to get to .500, so writers correctly use that as the reference point. But with wins, the goal is to make a team look incredibly dominant, so the win/loss distinction is used but mis-titled.

And it doesn't matter if it's the end of the season or the middle - it still applies. For instance, everyone has keyed on the fact that on the morning of August 8th, the Tigers had a 10-game lead in the AL Central and were "40 games above .500." Their record? 76-36. They were 20 games above .500 (which would have been 56-56 at that point).

[Pumpy Tudors]

The reason that I mention that it's more meaningful in midseason is that a team can generall reach .500 if there are still games left to play. If the season is over, you're not getting to .500 anyway, so what significance does the number have at that point?

For me, the phrase's only meaning is what it would take for a team to get to .500, whether they have to go up or down. I don't particularly like the phrase, personally, but I see where they're coming from. It provides a reference point that applies at any point during the season. If a team is 40 games over .500, you know that they're probably not in any danger, whether they've played 60 games or 120. Once the season ends, though, we know that everyone has played (approximately) the same number of games, so the number of wins is good enough.

I'm probably debating an entirely different thing at this point, so I'll kindly be quiet now.

[Ksyrup]

I see what you're saying, but yeah, that's a different point. My point is that it's annoying that "40 games over .500" doesn't mean what it should - unless you're the 1906 Chicago Cubs.

[Mustang]

Probably more just stems from the whole you're going to win 50/lose 50 games and your season depends on what you do with the other 62 so.. when someone finishes 112 - 50, they have a tendency to say 62 games over .500

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

The reason that I mention that it's more meaningful in midseason is that a team can generall reach .500 if there are still games left to play. If the season is over, you're not getting to .500 anyway, so what significance does the number have at that point?

For me, the phrase's only meaning is what it would take for a team to get to .500, whether they have to go up or down. I don't particularly like the phrase, personally, but I see where they're coming from. It provides a reference point that applies at any point during the season. If a team is 40 games over .500, you know that they're probably not in any danger, whether they've played 60 games or 120. Once the season ends, though, we know that everyone has played (approximately) the same number of games, so the number of wins is good enough.

I'm probably debating an entirely different thing at this point, so I'll kindly be quiet now.

I think what you guys are saying is that when people say a team is "n games under .500" it means they are n games behind what .500 will be at time n (assuming this all is said at time 0). But if we're saying this statement at omega (i.e. the end of the table), there's no point to this. Of course, you guys have probably already figured that out, so carry on.

[Ksyrup]

I'm more concerned with the accuracy of the statement. Regardless of when it is used, the phrase "X games over .500," as used, almost always refers to the difference between wins and losses, not wins and the number of wins that it would take to be at .500 at that given point.

[rkmsuf]

Well this thread signals we've just about hit bottom here.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Well this thread signals we've just about hit bottom here.

Maybe, but we're 15 games from the middle.

[Subby]

Your first mistake was reading Jayson Stark...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Subby

Your first mistake was reading Jayson Stark...

He's the one who set me off this morning. Unfortunately, he is one of hundreds of writers who do the same thing. He just has a particularly annoying way of writing about it.

[kurtism]

I suspect this thread is simply a needlessly elaborate attempt at seducing Quik...

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Nice catch. I guess I get the idea behind the phrase, because if a team is 3 games under .500 at midseason, it means that they'll be at .500 if they win their next 3. The phrase becomes meaningless after the season ends, though. Once the season has finished, it's all about the final record. The Mets were 97-65, the Cardinals were 83-78. The difference between the teams is 13.5 games, not 27. Comparing these teams' records to .500 is pointless now.

I had never thought about that before, but it's a great point.

Did the Cards play only 161 games? Anyway, you'd think the guy would smell a rat when he mentions the Mets winning 27 games more than the Cards!

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by kurtism

I suspect this thread is simply a needlessly elaborate attempt at seducing Quik...

It's akin to Ksyrup putting on his negligee.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

It's akin to Ksyrup putting on his negligee.

I'm waiting until I drop another 25 pounds before I break out the lingerie.

Besides, I don't think that stuff has any effect on robots.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm waiting until I drop another 25 pounds before I break out the lingerie.

Besides, I don't think that stuff has any effect on robots.

that's why you busted out the math and logic. horny ksyrup is.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Did the Cards play only 161 games? Anyway, you'd think the guy would smell a rat when he mentions the Mets winning 27 games more than the Cards!

Yes, there was one rainout that the Cards almost had to make up on the Monday after the season ended, but Houston's loss gave the Cards a 1.5 game lead, so it was not necessary. I think it was a game against the Giants that got rained out.

[st.cronin]

I get upset about some pretty stupid stuff, too. Like last night driving home, they were playing one of Neil Young's great songs, Cowgirl In The Sand, but went to commercial in the MIDDLE OF THE GUITAR SOLO! wtf

[bulletsponge]

sports writers are morons in general

[Toddzilla]

You know what pisses me off? When people round batting averages (or OBP or SLG or whatever) up.

YOU DON'T ROUND UP!

Correct form is to truncate. If a batter is hitting .2996, he is NOT hitting .300, he is hitting .299. That hitter has a hit in LESS than 30% of his ABs, so he has not hit .300, he has hit .299.

[QuikSand]

This was a lost cause long ago.