The .500 Fallacy

 You say they are 5 games over .500. If they lose 5 games in a row they are still 20-15 which is above .500. If your theroy was correct they would be at .500 when they lost those 5 games.

Well then, you would have to understand the the value of .500 changes with every game played. Again, another person attempting to negat by throwing in potential changes due to games that haven't been played. One thing you guys are right about is the relativeness. .500 is relative to the number of games that HAVE BEEN played, not the games that are scheduled for the future.

He's talking in reference to how many games won would have made them .500 at the time of their total games, not future games.

Gosh I love intelligence. Maybe it has to do with us being BORICUAS LMAO!!!

He's talking in reference to how many games won would have made them .500 at the time of their total games, not future games.

I.E. this thread is arguing semantics.

sweet.

yeah, and? 84-84 is a .500 record. it doesnt matter how many games are actually played in a season. its a snapshot kind of thing. where are you at this moment?

I am sorry, I should have made this easier realizing the potential of you being active on the boards. You see BAdge, there are 162 games in an MLB season. 84+84=168. Therefore a record of 84-84 is IMPOSSIBLE. MEANING the Cardinals were only 3 games under .500, not 6.

I disagree and agree with you if that is possible. A team that is 20-10 is 10 games over .500 not 5 assuming it is a 162 game season. If they lost they their next 5 they would be 20-15...... still over .500. 2.5 by your count....... that makes no sense! their winning % would be .571.

In the other case, the full season has been played and the Cards are 3 games under .500 not 6.

In one case you assume a 162 game season (Cards), in the other you do not. A team winning at a .666% rate would be about 108-54 or 27 games over .500.

Cowboy,

Besides, sports isn't designed to only attract the intelligent. It's designed for everyone, so in order to sell the product, you have to lower the logic to a level that's understood by all. It has to be easy enough for a Caveman to understand. (Hope I didn't offend anyone). There's no better proof then the clips of the cheerleaders/dancers for the teams that have them. You a shot focused on the faces only 50% of the time. You never see any team have women out there in business attire explaining Quantum Physics. You just want them to wiggle, jiggle, and bounce without saying anything. Do you have an issue with that falatio...I mean fallacy?

 The Cardinals were 78-84 last year. If they were 6 games under .500, that would imply a .500 record would be 84-84.

sematics. do you know what that means?

i never resort to this, but you have challenged me far too many times.

i have 10x the knowledge of mathematics and statistics that you do. you are not even close to the level. please, for the last time, stop trying to act like an internet smart kid. you are far from it.

community college boy

If they lost they their next 5 they would be 20-15...... still over .500. 2.5 by your count....... that makes no sense! their winning % would be .571.

See above.

And no you can't change the meaning and operationalization of .500 at the end of the season. The same operations must be performed throughout. Otherwise, that would be illogical.

Awe, aint that cute. I know it all from standard deviation, to Cramer's V, to Lambda, to Tau-b/c, to linear-by -linear association, and Pearson chi-square with P-Values.

Get over it Badge. I am not as stupid as you wish I were, and your level of statistical sophistication is not that much higher than mine.

okay, fine, youre smart.

youre also wrong here to insult my "level of sophistication" for the zillionth time.

my point is logically sound, and valid.

you are arguing semantics. this thread is pointless.

Not really, there is only one meaning of 50%. No semantics in that.

 this thread is pointless

Then BE-GONE

...just to add one final point to this interesting discussion is that there ARE really other more important thing to have ones gears grinded because of other than this .500 business.....

...although it made for some interesting viewpoints.....

Sorry Cowboy but you're off on this one. Being .500 implies a record with an even number of wins and losses. Just as other posters mentioned, if you were 20-10, you have win your next 10 to get to .500. 

You're example with the Cardinals final record is accurate but they are still 6 games under .500.  Had they (past tense) won 3 instead of losing 3, the