Celts projected for 47 Wins by SI

[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 second team is 6 games ahead of a team that has a .500 record but is 12 games over a .500 winning percentage.   The season's over.   And if it was somehow magically extended out, it would take 12 losses in a row, not 6 to get that team a .500 winning percentage.

[Evantime34]

certainly your opinion.  I don't really agree on the team assessments but to each their own.  I just don't see us passing Toronto, Chicago, Washington or Atlanta unless they have a significant injury event. 
As for Miami, yes, for now I'll go with Bosh being 90-100% ready to play and Wade to be ready to play.  that team has better players than us and I expect them to do better than us.
The others, as I mentioned, it'll be a tight race with us for that 8th seed. 

as far as the youth improvement, here's my take on it.  yes, we do have a number of younger players and yes, I am expecting them to improve.  here's what I question on it:
1. how much improvement can they make?  AB is pretty much what he is.  KO might improve a little in terms of being more aggressive.  Sully might improve if he's better conditioned.  Zeller, maybe a bit.  Young - if only.  Smart, sure, best chance at the most improvement but that's if he can put the ball in the hoop more.  thing is, IT is still on the roster and now it's full time.  won't be playing him with AB and Smart at the same time so any improvements AB and Smart make will be somewhat limited.

2. Other teams also have young players and they figure to improve as well.  Some of those teams have players who are considered better prospects than the ones we have and are expected to improve as much as or more than the young players we have.  Don't forget that some of those other teams also added draft picks this year and their players are considered better prospects than ours (Indy adding Turner and Detroit adding Johnson as prime examples) and those prospects play positions where they figure to get some time and contribute as opposed to our 3 rookies who are currently stuck behind the logjams of players at their positions.

We'll see how the season plays out.  I can't imagine that we'll finish the season with the roster we currently have so who knows.  I'd like nothing better than to make the playoffs and finish better than I'm anticipating.  It's not like I'm rooting for losses or missing the playoffs for a lottery pick.  I'd much prefer  to watch the team win and win a lot.  much more enjoyable.

TP for not arguing with me on what I think of the other teams vying for playoff spots. It is solely my opinion and a lot of people beg to differ but neither of us will know until the season starts.

As to where players can improve, if each player improves in one area just slightly to the point that it adds even a fractional point per player per 100 possession it will lead to more wins over the course of the season.

Do not agree with Bradley being who he is. He's the same age as Olynyk, Crowder and only a year younger than Sully. As to how he could develop I expect him to shoot better from 3. Every year (except 2013-14) Bradley has increased the percentage of his shots that were attempted from 3 and every year in his career his numbers have went up, went down, went up and then down again.  Last year he shot below his career average from 3 so I expect some mean reversion at the very least. After a down year last year I expect him to hit a higher percent this year and take even more 3's making him a lot more valuable.

Also last year for the first time it seemed refs made it a point of emphasis to call Bradley for fouls when he was closely guarding the ball handler bringing the ball up. Usually when refs make a point of emphasis that lasts for a year and then fades away to make room for a new point of emphasis. In other words I expect Bradley to be called for less fouls guarding in the back court and thus become more valuable defensively.

Sullinger, Crowder (career low percentage) and Olynyk could all improve by shooting a better percentage from 3 (which I think is possible for each). Olynyk can improve by starting his rotations a step earlier and thus cutting off driving lanes before they begin.

Some teams do have players with higher upside than our young players. We have many more quality young players than most teams. This means that other teams are beholden to the improvement of one or two players in order for their team to get better. The Celtics are able to mitigate the risk of one player getting worse by having so many young players that they are more likely to be closer to the improvement co-efficient regardless of which players are worse and which are better. If NBA history is any indication the Celtics will have enough players who improve to make them better while being able to sit the players that aren't improving due to having 13 of their players on the positive side of the aging curve.

[Moranis]

certainly your opinion.  I don't really agree on the team assessments but to each their own.  I just don't see us passing Toronto, Chicago, Washington or Atlanta unless they have a significant injury event. 
As for Miami, yes, for now I'll go with Bosh being 90-100% ready to play and Wade to be ready to play.  that team has better players than us and I expect them to do better than us.
The others, as I mentioned, it'll be a tight race with us for that 8th seed. 

as far as the youth improvement, here's my take on it.  yes, we do have a number of younger players and yes, I am expecting them to improve.  here's what I question on it:
1. how much improvement can they make?  AB is pretty much what he is.  KO might improve a little in terms of being more aggressive.  Sully might improve if he's better conditioned.  Zeller, maybe a bit.  Young - if only.  Smart, sure, best chance at the most improvement but that's if he can put the ball in the hoop more.  thing is, IT is still on the roster and now it's full time.  won't be playing him with AB and Smart at the same time so any improvements AB and Smart make will be somewhat limited.

2. Other teams also have young players and they figure to improve as well.  Some of those teams have players who are considered better prospects than the ones we have and are expected to improve as much as or more than the young players we have.  Don't forget that some of those other teams also added draft picks this year and their players are considered better prospects than ours (Indy adding Turner and Detroit adding Johnson as prime examples) and those prospects play positions where they figure to get some time and contribute as opposed to our 3 rookies who are currently stuck behind the logjams of players at their positions.

We'll see how the season plays out.  I can't imagine that we'll finish the season with the roster we currently have so who knows.  I'd like nothing better than to make the playoffs and finish better than I'm anticipating.  It's not like I'm rooting for losses or missing the playoffs for a lottery pick.  I'd much prefer  to watch the team win and win a lot.  much more enjoyable.

TP for not arguing with me on what I think of the other teams vying for playoff spots. It is solely my opinion and a lot of people beg to differ but neither of us will know until the season starts.

As to where players can improve, if each player improves in one area just slightly to the point that it adds even a fractional point per player per 100 possession it will lead to more wins over the course of the season.

Do not agree with Bradley being who he is. He's the same age as Olynyk, Crowder and only a year younger than Sully. As to how he could develop I expect him to shoot better from 3. Every year (except 2013-14) Bradley has increased the percentage of his shots that were attempted from 3 and every year in his career his numbers have went up, went down, went up and then down again.  Last year he shot below his career average from 3 so I expect some mean reversion at the very least. After a down year last year I expect him to hit a higher percent this year and take even more 3's making him a lot more valuable.

Also last year for the first time it seemed refs made it a point of emphasis to call Bradley for fouls when he was closely guarding the ball handler bringing the ball up. Usually when refs make a point of emphasis that lasts for a year and then fades away to make room for a new point of emphasis. In other words I expect Bradley to be called for less fouls guarding in the back court and thus become more valuable defensively.

Sullinger, Crowder (career low percentage) and Olynyk could all improve by shooting a better percentage from 3 (which I think is possible for each). Olynyk can improve by starting his rotations a step earlier and thus cutting off driving lanes before they begin.

Some teams do have players with higher upside than our young players. We have many more quality young players than most teams. This means that other teams are beholden to the improvement of one or two players in order for their team to get better. The Celtics are able to mitigate the risk of one player getting worse by having so many young players that they are more likely to be closer to the improvement co-efficient regardless of which players are worse and which are better. If NBA history is any indication the Celtics will have enough players who improve to make them better while being able to sit the players that aren't improving due to having 13 of their players on the positive side of the aging curve.

I'm sure our players will improve a bit, but the fundamental problem the Celtics have is those players ceilings just aren't that high.  A guy like Bradley has basically reached his ceiling as a player.  He could improve his shooting, but he is not going to be a 20 point scorer and isn't a great ball handler, rebounder, or passer.  He is a role player.  Thomas is an excellent scorer, but doesn't do much else.  He isn't going to change.  Olynyk could certainly be more consistent but he is basically what he is.  Same with Crowder and Zeller.  Small improvements sure, but nothing more than role players.  That leaves Smart and Sullinger.  Both should get better and by doing so could actually affect the actual outcome of games because they have the two highest ceilings on the team.  Sullinger could jump up to an 18/10 type player and Smart certainly should improve his scoring efficiency and overall defensive prowess.  Again though at best they are 3rd starter on a championship type team potential.

There are no Ben Wallace types on this team.  There aren't even a Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace or Richard Hamilton, which is why I don't get the comparisons to that Pistons squad.  Boston is a team full of role players.

[D.o.s.]

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 second team is 6 games ahead of a team that has a .500 record but is 12 games over a .500 winning percentage.   The season's over.   And if it was somehow magically extended out, it would take 12 losses in a row, not 6 to get that team a .500 winning percentage.

Exactly. It is two equally correct interpretations of the same statistic. The reason baseball is a terrible analog to use re: how many games above/below whatever metric you want is that it has a comparatively endless season.

[Evantime34]

certainly your opinion.  I don't really agree on the team assessments but to each their own.  I just don't see us passing Toronto, Chicago, Washington or Atlanta unless they have a significant injury event. 
As for Miami, yes, for now I'll go with Bosh being 90-100% ready to play and Wade to be ready to play.  that team has better players than us and I expect them to do better than us.
The others, as I mentioned, it'll be a tight race with us for that 8th seed. 

as far as the youth improvement, here's my take on it.  yes, we do have a number of younger players and yes, I am expecting them to improve.  here's what I question on it:
1. how much improvement can they make?  AB is pretty much what he is.  KO might improve a little in terms of being more aggressive.  Sully might improve if he's better conditioned.  Zeller, maybe a bit.  Young - if only.  Smart, sure, best chance at the most improvement but that's if he can put the ball in the hoop more.  thing is, IT is still on the roster and now it's full time.  won't be playing him with AB and Smart at the same time so any improvements AB and Smart make will be somewhat limited.

2. Other teams also have young players and they figure to improve as well.  Some of those teams have players who are considered better prospects than the ones we have and are expected to improve as much as or more than the young players we have.  Don't forget that some of those other teams also added draft picks this year and their players are considered better prospects than ours (Indy adding Turner and Detroit adding Johnson as prime examples) and those prospects play positions where they figure to get some time and contribute as opposed to our 3 rookies who are currently stuck behind the logjams of players at their positions.

We'll see how the season plays out.  I can't imagine that we'll finish the season with the roster we currently have so who knows.  I'd like nothing better than to make the playoffs and finish better than I'm anticipating.  It's not like I'm rooting for losses or missing the playoffs for a lottery pick.  I'd much prefer  to watch the team win and win a lot.  much more enjoyable.

TP for not arguing with me on what I think of the other teams vying for playoff spots. It is solely my opinion and a lot of people beg to differ but neither of us will know until the season starts.

As to where players can improve, if each player improves in one area just slightly to the point that it adds even a fractional point per player per 100 possession it will lead to more wins over the course of the season.

Do not agree with Bradley being who he is. He's the same age as Olynyk, Crowder and only a year younger than Sully. As to how he could develop I expect him to shoot better from 3. Every year (except 2013-14) Bradley has increased the percentage of his shots that were attempted from 3 and every year in his career his numbers have went up, went down, went up and then down again.  Last year he shot below his career average from 3 so I expect some mean reversion at the very least. After a down year last year I expect him to hit a higher percent this year and take even more 3's making him a lot more valuable.

Also last year for the first time it seemed refs made it a point of emphasis to call Bradley for fouls when he was closely guarding the ball handler bringing the ball up. Usually when refs make a point of emphasis that lasts for a year and then fades away to make room for a new point of emphasis. In other words I expect Bradley to be called for less fouls guarding in the back court and thus become more valuable defensively.

Sullinger, Crowder (career low percentage) and Olynyk could all improve by shooting a better percentage from 3 (which I think is possible for each). Olynyk can improve by starting his rotations a step earlier and thus cutting off driving lanes before they begin.

Some teams do have players with higher upside than our young players. We have many more quality young players than most teams. This means that other teams are beholden to the improvement of one or two players in order for their team to get better. The Celtics are able to mitigate the risk of one player getting worse by having so many young players that they are more likely to be closer to the improvement co-efficient regardless of which players are worse and which are better. If NBA history is any indication the Celtics will have enough players who improve to make them better while being able to sit the players that aren't improving due to having 13 of their players on the positive side of the aging curve.

I'm sure our players will improve a bit, but the fundamental problem the Celtics have is those players ceilings just aren't that high.  A guy like Bradley has basically reached his ceiling as a player.  He could improve his shooting, but he is not going to be a 20 point scorer and isn't a great ball handler, rebounder, or passer.  He is a role player.  Thomas is an excellent scorer, but doesn't do much else.  He isn't going to change.  Olynyk could certainly be more consistent but he is basically what he is.  Same with Crowder and Zeller.  Small improvements sure, but nothing more than role players.  That leaves Smart and Sullinger.  Both should get better and by doing so could actually affect the actual outcome of games because they have the two highest ceilings on the team.  Sullinger could jump up to an 18/10 type player and Smart certainly should improve his scoring efficiency and overall defensive prowess.  Again though at best they are 3rd starter on a championship type team potential.

There are no Ben Wallace types on this team.  There aren't even a Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace or Richard Hamilton, which is why I don't get the comparisons to that Pistons squad.  Boston is a team full of role players.

You have made the determination that guys are what they are before a lot of them turn 25. If you were to look at Ben Wallace and Chauncey Billups at those ages you would have determined that they were role players at best. You are judging our players ceiling way too early.

[D.o.s.]

And you are projecting a hypothetical onto a poster who was almost certainly old enough to judge the merits of a 25 year old Chauncey Billups as he was playing. Watch that when you talk about unreasonable determinations.

To your point: it's a hard estimation colored by hindsight, but it's not unreasonable to say, for example, that the likelihood of Bradley becoming one of the 5 best shooting guards in the NBA is pretty low. Bradley exceeded expectations from his disastrous rookie season, but I don't think anyone expects him to make a similar leap to the next level of play.

I also think that figuring out the relative ceilings within a team is fairly easy. Do you argue with the idea that Sullinger and Smart have the highest ceilings on the squad right now?

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

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 second team is 6 games ahead of a team that has a .500 record but is 12 games over a .500 winning percentage.   The season's over.   And if it was somehow magically extended out, it would take 12 losses in a row, not 6 to get that team a .500 winning percentage.

Exactly. It is two equally correct interpretations of the same statistic. The reason baseball is a terrible analog to use re: how many games above/below whatever metric you want is that it has a comparatively endless season.

Donoghus—thanks for explaining it better than I could.

D.o.s.—thanks for referencing the baseball analogy and how troublesome it can be. I had that analogy in mind originally, but I couldn't quite make it work on paper. "Games ahead/behind" is definitely a different measurement from "games above .500."

[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.

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_record_comparison/conferenceNew_Std_Div.html

[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.

[LooseCannon]

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.

Sigh.  We're still on this?  I think you are explaining the right thing in the wrong way.

Let's label two mindsets:
A) A team that is 47-35 is six games over .500
B) A team that is 47-35 is twelve games over .500

Let's start with a team that is 10-10.  Clearly, that team is at .500.  If that team wins another game, it will be 11-10.  According to mindset A, this team should be 0.5 games over .500, while mindset B has this team at one game over .500.  However, saying this team is half a game over .500 sound incredibly silly.  A team that is 11-10 is one game over .500.

Now, let's say that team wins another game, going to 12-10.  A says that the team is 1 game over .500, while B says the team is 2 games over .500.  But we can't have the team be one game over .500 at both 11-10 and 12-10, therefore it is two games over .500.

Repeat for however many games over .500 you want to talk about.

47-35 is six games above .500 if having exactly one more win than losses is being half a game over .500.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Donoghus]

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

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

I think we're just seeing things in 2 different ways.

[Big333223]

Let's start with a team that is 10-10.  Clearly, that team is at .500.  If that team wins another game, it will be 11-10.  According to mindset A, this team should be 0.5 games over .500, while mindset B has this team at one game over .500.  However, saying this team is half a game over .500 sound incredibly silly.  A team that is 11-10 is one game over .500.

It might sound silly to you but it's not. It's the norm. Since the team has played an odd number of games, there is no way for it to be exactly .500, so if it is 11-10, you would indeed say that that team is 1/2 a game above .500.

Similarly, if you look at last season's NBA standings, there are full game differences between every team because everyone has played the same number of games. If you look at the current MLB standings, you see half games all over the place because some teams have played an even number of games and some have played an odd number of games.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/