Celts projected for 47 Wins by SI

[Big333223]

Also, IMHO, 47-35 is 6 games over .500.

Going .500 means winning half of your games. A team that has played 82 games and has gone 41-41 is a .500 team. If a different team that plays 82 games wins 6 more games than the first team, they'd have a record of 47-35. Therefore the second team is "6 games over .500."

That is not right though.  The team that is 47-35 would have to lose 12 games to be .500 and is thus 12 games over .500.  You don't just say up they only play 82 games and take it from the 41 mid point.  Look at every single newspaper, sports network, etc.  if you are 47-35 you are 12 games over .500. 

Put it another way the Yankees are currently 53-41, are they 28 games below .500 because 81-81 is a .500 record at the end of the year.  No the Yankees are 12 games above .500 because they would have to lose 12 straight games to have a .500 record.

You say that my metric isn't right, but you didn't say what is wrong with the methodology.

I can tell you why yours is wrong: You're starting with the record of a team that played 82 games but judging it against a team that's played 94 games (12 more games). If a team plays more games (as in the way you're describing your methodology by saying they'd have to lose 12 more games to hit .500) then you're changing the relationship of the numbers.

And as proof that you're wrong insofar as the official use of the statisitc, look at NBA.com's league standings for last year. It lists Milwaukee (41-41) as being 12 games behind Cleveland (53-29). So the opposite it also true, Cleveland is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee, which is .500.

Because CLE is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee.  As in games.  However, CLE's winning percentage is .646.   For CLE to get to a .500 winning percentage, they would have to lose 24 games in a row.   They have 24 more wins than loses.   If wins = loses, you're a .500 team.

CLE is 12 games ahead of a MIL team that has a .500 winning percentage.  However, they're not 12 game decisions (loses) away from being a .500 team themselves because those 12 games have already been played.  And the season is over.

You keep using this metric that you've completely made up. To lose 24 games in a row, the team would have to play 24 more games, which changes the relationship of the numbers to one another.

Cleveland is 12 games above Milwaukee in the standings. Milwaukee is .500. Cleveland is 12 games above .500. It's really that simple.

What am I making up?

You understand there is a discernible difference between games & games relative to a .500 winning percentage, right?

This isn't rocket science. The games have been played. If they had been decided differently, you're talking a different percentage and a difference in game in standings. But they weren't.

When you say "a team would have to win 12 more games to reach .500" that doesn't mean anything. That's a method that you've made up.

And you seem confused because now you're bringing up win percentage which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[Donoghus]

Also, IMHO, 47-35 is 6 games over .500.

Going .500 means winning half of your games. A team that has played 82 games and has gone 41-41 is a .500 team. If a different team that plays 82 games wins 6 more games than the first team, they'd have a record of 47-35. Therefore the second team is "6 games over .500."

That is not right though.  The team that is 47-35 would have to lose 12 games to be .500 and is thus 12 games over .500.  You don't just say up they only play 82 games and take it from the 41 mid point.  Look at every single newspaper, sports network, etc.  if you are 47-35 you are 12 games over .500. 

Put it another way the Yankees are currently 53-41, are they 28 games below .500 because 81-81 is a .500 record at the end of the year.  No the Yankees are 12 games above .500 because they would have to lose 12 straight games to have a .500 record.

You say that my metric isn't right, but you didn't say what is wrong with the methodology.

I can tell you why yours is wrong: You're starting with the record of a team that played 82 games but judging it against a team that's played 94 games (12 more games). If a team plays more games (as in the way you're describing your methodology by saying they'd have to lose 12 more games to hit .500) then you're changing the relationship of the numbers.

And as proof that you're wrong insofar as the official use of the statisitc, look at NBA.com's league standings for last year. It lists Milwaukee (41-41) as being 12 games behind Cleveland (53-29). So the opposite it also true, Cleveland is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee, which is .500.

Because CLE is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee.  As in games.  However, CLE's winning percentage is .646.   For CLE to get to a .500 winning percentage, they would have to lose 24 games in a row.   They have 24 more wins than loses.   If wins = loses, you're a .500 team.

CLE is 12 games ahead of a MIL team that has a .500 winning percentage.  However, they're not 12 game decisions (loses) away from being a .500 team themselves because those 12 games have already been played.  And the season is over.

You keep using this metric that you've completely made up. To lose 24 games in a row, the team would have to play 24 more games, which changes the relationship of the numbers to one another.

Cleveland is 12 games above Milwaukee in the standings. Milwaukee is .500. Cleveland is 12 games above .500. It's really that simple.

What am I making up?

You understand there is a discernible difference between games & games relative to a .500 winning percentage, right?

This isn't rocket science. The games have been played. If they had been decided differently, you're talking a different percentage and a difference in game in standings. But they weren't.

When you say "a team would have to win 12 more games to reach .500" that doesn't mean anything. That's a method that you've made up.

And you seem confused because now you're bringing up win percentage with has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

How is it a made up method? If the Red Sox are 42-52, wouldn't they have to win 10 games to get to .500?  This stuff is referred to in sports media all the time. It isn't something I just "made up". Continue to stomp your feet about a "made up" method, though.

Go back to page 5-6 or so of this thread to see how this thing all started. It seems like there are two ways to look at this issue. That's pretty easy to see given the debate on this topic.  Not really any confusion unless there is an inability to separate things.

[D.o.s.]

Here's a wikipedia page explaining the formula. You're basically doing everything except dividing by 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_behind

Reading your own links is hard:

The "games behind" number is sometimes made in reference to ".500" (even in wins and losses) although in this particular context, the word "behind" is replaced by "under" or "below". In making this calculation, however, the division by two is not done. For example, a team with a record of 19 wins and 20 losses is considered as being "one game under .500", in contrast to being "one-half game behind" a team with a ".500" record of 20 wins and 20 losses.

[PhoSita]

*Reads through last few pages of thread*

*Checks calendar*

"Yep, it's definitely late July."

[Big333223]

Also, IMHO, 47-35 is 6 games over .500.

Going .500 means winning half of your games. A team that has played 82 games and has gone 41-41 is a .500 team. If a different team that plays 82 games wins 6 more games than the first team, they'd have a record of 47-35. Therefore the second team is "6 games over .500."

That is not right though.  The team that is 47-35 would have to lose 12 games to be .500 and is thus 12 games over .500.  You don't just say up they only play 82 games and take it from the 41 mid point.  Look at every single newspaper, sports network, etc.  if you are 47-35 you are 12 games over .500. 

Put it another way the Yankees are currently 53-41, are they 28 games below .500 because 81-81 is a .500 record at the end of the year.  No the Yankees are 12 games above .500 because they would have to lose 12 straight games to have a .500 record.

You say that my metric isn't right, but you didn't say what is wrong with the methodology.

I can tell you why yours is wrong: You're starting with the record of a team that played 82 games but judging it against a team that's played 94 games (12 more games). If a team plays more games (as in the way you're describing your methodology by saying they'd have to lose 12 more games to hit .500) then you're changing the relationship of the numbers.

And as proof that you're wrong insofar as the official use of the statisitc, look at NBA.com's league standings for last year. It lists Milwaukee (41-41) as being 12 games behind Cleveland (53-29). So the opposite it also true, Cleveland is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee, which is .500.

Because CLE is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee.  As in games.  However, CLE's winning percentage is .646.   For CLE to get to a .500 winning percentage, they would have to lose 24 games in a row.   They have 24 more wins than loses.   If wins = loses, you're a .500 team.

CLE is 12 games ahead of a MIL team that has a .500 winning percentage.  However, they're not 12 game decisions (loses) away from being a .500 team themselves because those 12 games have already been played.  And the season is over.

You keep using this metric that you've completely made up. To lose 24 games in a row, the team would have to play 24 more games, which changes the relationship of the numbers to one another.

Cleveland is 12 games above Milwaukee in the standings. Milwaukee is .500. Cleveland is 12 games above .500. It's really that simple.

What am I making up?

You understand there is a discernible difference between games & games relative to a .500 winning percentage, right?

This isn't rocket science. The games have been played. If they had been decided differently, you're talking a different percentage and a difference in game in standings. But they weren't.

When you say "a team would have to win 12 more games to reach .500" that doesn't mean anything. That's a method that you've made up.

And you seem confused because now you're bringing up win percentage with has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

How is it a made up method? If the Red Sox are 42-52, wouldn't they have to win 10 games to get to .500?  This stuff is referred to in sports media all the time. It isn't something I just "made up". Continue to stomp your feet about a "made up" method, though.

Go back to page 5-6 or so of this thread to see how this thing all started. It seems like there are two ways to look at this issue. That's pretty easy to see given the debate on this topic.  Not really any confusion unless there is an inability to separate things.

Yes, the statement that you're making is true, it's the conclusion that you're making that is made up. Meanwhile, you still haven't even attempted to explain why my method is wrong.

[Evantime34]

Also, IMHO, 47-35 is 6 games over .500.

Going .500 means winning half of your games. A team that has played 82 games and has gone 41-41 is a .500 team. If a different team that plays 82 games wins 6 more games than the first team, they'd have a record of 47-35. Therefore the second team is "6 games over .500."

That is not right though.  The team that is 47-35 would have to lose 12 games to be .500 and is thus 12 games over .500.  You don't just say up they only play 82 games and take it from the 41 mid point.  Look at every single newspaper, sports network, etc.  if you are 47-35 you are 12 games over .500. 

Put it another way the Yankees are currently 53-41, are they 28 games below .500 because 81-81 is a .500 record at the end of the year.  No the Yankees are 12 games above .500 because they would have to lose 12 straight games to have a .500 record.

You say that my metric isn't right, but you didn't say what is wrong with the methodology.

I can tell you why yours is wrong: You're starting with the record of a team that played 82 games but judging it against a team that's played 94 games (12 more games). If a team plays more games (as in the way you're describing your methodology by saying they'd have to lose 12 more games to hit .500) then you're changing the relationship of the numbers.

And as proof that you're wrong insofar as the official use of the statisitc, look at NBA.com's league standings for last year. It lists Milwaukee (41-41) as being 12 games behind Cleveland (53-29). So the opposite it also true, Cleveland is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee, which is .500.

Because CLE is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee.  As in games.  However, CLE's winning percentage is .646.   For CLE to get to a .500 winning percentage, they would have to lose 24 games in a row.   They have 24 more wins than loses.   If wins = loses, you're a .500 team.

CLE is 12 games ahead of a MIL team that has a .500 winning percentage.  However, they're not 12 game decisions (loses) away from being a .500 team themselves because those 12 games have already been played.  And the season is over.

You keep using this metric that you've completely made up. To lose 24 games in a row, the team would have to play 24 more games, which changes the relationship of the numbers to one another.

Cleveland is 12 games above Milwaukee in the standings. Milwaukee is .500. Cleveland is 12 games above .500. It's really that simple.

What am I making up?

You understand there is a discernible difference between games & games relative to a .500 winning percentage, right?

This isn't rocket science. The games have been played. If they had been decided differently, you're talking a different percentage and a difference in game in standings. But they weren't.

When you say "a team would have to win 12 more games to reach .500" that doesn't mean anything. That's a method that you've made up.

And you seem confused because now you're bringing up win percentage with has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

How is it a made up method? If the Red Sox are 42-52, wouldn't they have to win 10 games to get to .500?  This stuff is referred to in sports media all the time. It isn't something I just "made up". Continue to stomp your feet about a "made up" method, though.

Go back to page 5-6 or so of this thread to see how this thing all started. It seems like there are two ways to look at this issue. That's pretty easy to see given the debate on this topic.  Not really any confusion unless there is an inability to separate things.

Yes, the statement that you're making is true, it's the conclusion that you're making that is made up. Meanwhile, you still haven't even attempted to explain why my method is wrong.

This debate needs its own thread with a poll. For the record I am 100% in agreement with Donoghus.

[Big333223]

Here's a wikipedia page explaining the formula. You're basically doing everything except dividing by 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_behind

Reading your own links is hard:

The "games behind" number is sometimes made in reference to ".500" (even in wins and losses) although in this particular context, the word "behind" is replaced by "under" or "below". In making this calculation, however, the division by two is not done. For example, a team with a record of 19 wins and 20 losses is considered as being "one game under .500", in contrast to being "one-half game behind" a team with a ".500" record of 20 wins and 20 losses.

Oops. [dang].

I geuss I am wrong. It still makes no sense to me that you'd have 2 different ways of measuring basically the same thing, one against a team and the other against a record. I guess I confused the two.

[greece66]

Simmons just jumped on the optimist bandwagon 

https://twitter.com/BillSimmons/status/624270948657680389

Of course, famous analyst Biff Simons is even more optimistic

https://twitter.com/biffsimons/status/624319120620675072

On a different note, the clueless Bleacher Report ranks us 28th

https://twitter.com/biffsimons/status/624319120620675072

Guys, what more proofs do you need that we are heading in the right direction?

[greece66]

Also, IMHO, 47-35 is 6 games over .500.

Going .500 means winning half of your games. A team that has played 82 games and has gone 41-41 is a .500 team. If a different team that plays 82 games wins 6 more games than the first team, they'd have a record of 47-35. Therefore the second team is "6 games over .500."

That is not right though.  The team that is 47-35 would have to lose 12 games to be .500 and is thus 12 games over .500.  You don't just say up they only play 82 games and take it from the 41 mid point.  Look at every single newspaper, sports network, etc.  if you are 47-35 you are 12 games over .500. 

Put it another way the Yankees are currently 53-41, are they 28 games below .500 because 81-81 is a .500 record at the end of the year.  No the Yankees are 12 games above .500 because they would have to lose 12 straight games to have a .500 record.

You say that my metric isn't right, but you didn't say what is wrong with the methodology.

I can tell you why yours is wrong: You're starting with the record of a team that played 82 games but judging it against a team that's played 94 games (12 more games). If a team plays more games (as in the way you're describing your methodology by saying they'd have to lose 12 more games to hit .500) then you're changing the relationship of the numbers.

And as proof that you're wrong insofar as the official use of the statisitc, look at NBA.com's league standings for last year. It lists Milwaukee (41-41) as being 12 games behind Cleveland (53-29). So the opposite it also true, Cleveland is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee, which is .500.

Because CLE is 12 games ahead of Milwaukee.  As in games.  However, CLE's winning percentage is .646.   For CLE to get to a .500 winning percentage, they would have to lose 24 games in a row.   They have 24 more wins than loses.   If wins = loses, you're a .500 team.

CLE is 12 games ahead of a MIL team that has a .500 winning percentage.  However, they're not 12 game decisions (loses) away from being a .500 team themselves because those 12 games have already been played.  And the season is over.

You keep using this metric that you've completely made up. To lose 24 games in a row, the team would have to play 24 more games, which changes the relationship of the numbers to one another.

Cleveland is 12 games above Milwaukee in the standings. Milwaukee is .500. Cleveland is 12 games above .500. It's really that simple.

What am I making up?

You understand there is a discernible difference between games & games relative to a .500 winning percentage, right?

This isn't rocket science. The games have been played. If they had been decided differently, you're talking a different percentage and a difference in game in standings. But they weren't.

When you say "a team would have to win 12 more games to reach .500" that doesn't mean anything. That's a method that you've made up.

And you seem confused because now you're bringing up win percentage with has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

How is it a made up method? If the Red Sox are 42-52, wouldn't they have to win 10 games to get to .500?  This stuff is referred to in sports media all the time. It isn't something I just "made up". Continue to stomp your feet about a "made up" method, though.

Go back to page 5-6 or so of this thread to see how this thing all started. It seems like there are two ways to look at this issue. That's pretty easy to see given the debate on this topic.  Not really any confusion unless there is an inability to separate things.

Yes, the statement that you're making is true, it's the conclusion that you're making that is made up. Meanwhile, you still haven't even attempted to explain why my method is wrong.

This debate needs its own thread with a poll. For the record I am 100% in agreement with Donoghus.

This makes two of us 
Following this exchange was like... wow.Let's make this thread happen.