The .500 Fallacy

This is a fallacy that REALLY grinds my gears. Probably because it is such an obviously elementary mistake, and yet when people are introduced the proper way to measure a team's record relative to .500, they still don't get it and disagree. I would guess that at the least, 99% of you guys/girls make this mistake on a daily basis, but don't even realize it.

When a team has a record of 20-10, it is more than common for people to say that they are 10 games above .500. However, this is FAR from true. In order to understand this, let me first use the Cardinals final record of the 2007 season. The Cardinals were 78-84 last year. However, they were not 6 games under .500. That would imply, in order to be 6 games under .500, they would have a record of 84-84 meaning that an MLB season has 168 games instead of 162. The fact is, they were 3 games under .500.

So, a team that is 20-10 is 5 games over .500, and not 10. This is very simple if you have not caught on just yet, here is what you do. Add the total number of games played and get the number 30. 50% of 30 is 15, therefore that team is 5 games over 15, or .500.

Agree or Disagree?

Change Your Bad Habits BUMP

Anybody that answers no please explain yourself and tell me how it is possible.

I understand the logic behind what you said.

I think the problem with it is, well, look at the Yankees. They are 14 and 15. Are they 1/2 game under .500?

Problem with your 20-10 theory is it will take a team 10 more losses without a win to be at .500. Not 5.

In the 20-10 case, 10 games over .500 would be accurate. I think you are trying to say "5 game swing from .500" based on if a tam won 5 more agmes, they'd have 5 less lossed. "5 game swing from .500" would more accurate in my opinion.

Are they 1/2 game under .500?

Why not, they could be 1/2 a game out of first place...

Problem with your 20-10 theory is it will take a team 10 more losses without a win to be at .500. Not 5.

First, not a theory, it is basic math. And the problem you are having is looking towards the future. You have to look at the record as it is right now. in 10 more losses, they would have played 40 games, not the 30 that the 20-10 sums up to be.

.500 is the same thing as 50%. 50% of 30 games = 15.

So I guess it is possible for a team to be 84-84 for the regular season?

Has nothing to do with how many games you play a year.

If you are basing it on that rational, then you have to base current record compared to the 81 wins you would need to technically get you to .500 for the season. If a team in 20-10, they are 61 games below .500.