The .500 Fallacy

Ok Btown, which is better 17-12 or 18-11?

let's look at this game-by-game.  this 20-10 example.  say they win their next game.  .500 percent of their games would now be 15.5.  11 wins would be 4.5 under the .500 mark AT THAT POINT.  now let's assume they win the next game as well.  .500 is now 16.  12 wins would be 4 games under the .500 mark.  now let's say they lose the next game.  the new .500 mark is 16.5.  so since they are still at 12 wins, they are 4.5 under .500 again.  the people who don't understand this concept are looking at how a team has to perform over their next however many games to make the wins and losses equal.  that's not correct.  FUTURE PERFORMANCE DOES NOT FACTOR IN.  a team's performance UP TO THIS EXACT MOMENT IN TIME is what determines how far from .500 they are. 

"this is how many games they would HAVE to win to GET TO at .500" - incorrect

"this is how many games they would HAVE HAD to win to BE NOW at .500" - correct

am i making any sense to y'all?

I neither agree nor disagree.  In fact, even mentioning how many games over or under .500 is irrelevant.

What is important is 1.  The number of games over or under the team above or below your team; or 2.  The percent of your team.

Here is an example of how using under or above games are won:  I'll use hockey.  One team has a record of 1 game won, no games lost, and 10 games tied--Percent is 100%.

Next team has a record of 10 games won, and 1 game lost--Percent is 9.09%

Which team wins the league championship?  First team, of course.

Losing team's percent above is 90.9%.