The .500 Fallacy

Only in correlation to records of other teams, not to the team in of itself.

The over/under .500 theory is not based upon how another team does compared to you. Its only about your team's performance.

So what your saying is that if my team is 11-16 I would hav had to win an additional 2.5 of my previous games to be a .500 team.  Aaaaaah I finally understand thatnk you so much.

I think the problem with this country is not our understanding of basic mathematics.  It is our lack of reading comprehension.  Since this mathematic function requires you to divide by two, every factor in the funtion loses half of its value as i showed in my game-by-game example.  er go, one game only equals half a game in relation to the .500 mark.  So if your team is 11-16 they would have had to win 2.5 of the games they already played.  because they have played an odd number of games.  If you have played an odd number of games, it is impossible to be at .500.  how many wins/losses it takes to get to .500 is a different stat than the over/under .500 stat.  i know you won't understand this but that's ok

how many wins/losses it takes to get to .500 is a different stat than the over/under .500 stat.

Wow. You basically called everyone who does not agree with you dumb, then you end your post with the above quote. What you said is 100% incorrect. The number of games you are +/- .500 is EXACTLY how many games you would need to win or lose to get to .500.

If a team is 11-16, they are 5 games under .500 because eleven minus sixteen equals negative five.

If that team were to go on a 5 game winning streak, they would be at exactly .500

There is no division necessary.

Apparently it is you that does not understand.

dude,

your entire argument is based on future events!  let's look at this another way.  say you are unemployed.  you apply for a job as a salesman.  at this moment in time, you ARE unemployed due to past circumstances.  you WILL BE a salesman due to future circumstances.  now let's apply this to our situation.  if your record is 20-10.  what circumstances have to happen for you to GET TO .500 has nothing to do with your CURRENT DISTANCE FROM .500.  .500 is winning half of your games SO FAR.  half of your games SO FAR is 15.  er go, you are 5 games below .500.  future events have nothing to do with current position in time and space mathematically.  so mathematically, your future games have no bearing on your position in relation to the .500 mark.

It's all good mehaul. Was away from the cpu for a few. Just so you know, the future has nothing to do with what I am trying to explain here.

I posted this earlier and nobody replied. Perhaps you will.

This scenario is all in the past.

Your team just finished a game. You won. Your 10th win in a row. Your record is now 20-10. I think we can both agree that before the winning streak, you were 10-10. You winning % of exactly .500.

According to you, your current 20-10 record is 5 games over .500.

Please explain how you can start at .500, win 10 in a row, but only be 5 games over.

What your not understanding mehaul is that for cowboy's theory to be right is:

A) that time travel is possible

B) baseball plays half games or games can be tied

Here is a quote from his original poll.

"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."

What he has done is created a  new baseball stat that involves time travel and half games to be played. His logic is flawed. He clearly states over/ under! Think if baseball played a 161 game season and a team went 80-81. There are no more games to be played...... they finish 1/2 games from .500????....... 1/2 games do not exist! There is either 1 game or no games..... you can't win 1/2 of a game! his function simply does not apply to this situation, it doesn't account for odd numbered games. simply put half games don't exist therefore you can't divide by 1/2