Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Why do baseball media constantly miscalculate "games above/below .500"?
I'm constantly dismayed whenever I hear anyone associated with baseball talk about a team being "x games above .500" or "x games below .500", and miscalculate it.
Let's say that after 100 games, a team is 55-45. How many games above .500 are they? The common answer most baseball pundits give is "ten"--55 minus 45. But that's wrong. After 100 games, a truly .500 team would be 50-50--and this team would be only five games ahead of such a team in the standings. So the correct answer is obviously "five", not "ten". Just like when you're calculating "games back" in the standings, you need to divide by two.
Does anyone know the history of how this error started, or why the media and others continue to propagate it?
Brittney, you're partially right, but only when you say that a 100-62 team wouldn't be 21 games over .500. If another team in their division were to finish the season 81-81, then the 100-62 team would lead them by 19 games--and thus, would be 19 games over a .500 team, or "19 games over .500". It really is that simple. Yet far too often you hear that it would be 38 games over, which is obviously wrong.
Utter Chaos, it happens all the time--it's just slightly differently worded. To use your numbers, we frequently have teams that have records similar to 46-45, who are in the same division as a team which is 45-45. And we say all the time that they have a "half-game lead". So there's nothing at all unusual about using half-game terminology.
Chipmaker, your response doesn't make sense. Yes, a 55-45 team would need to win 10 straight games to reach .500--but "games above/below .500" has to do with where a team is, not where they could be. If a team is 80-82, you can't say that they need to win 2 straight to reach .500, as there aren't 2 games left. Instead, you have to say that if they had won 1 more game, they would have been .500--and therefore, they finished 1 game below .500.
That's why standings are calculated the way they are. If one team is 12-8, and another team is 10-10, then by your thinking, the 10-10 team would be four games back, as they'd need to win four straight games (if the 12-8 team played none during that time) to equal the 12-8 team in the games-back standings. But that's not the case--you correctly say that the 10-10 team is 2 games back, as they would be tied if they had won two more of their games, or the 12-8 team had lost two more, or any combination thereof.
Sorry, meant to say that a 55-45 team would have to LOSE ten straight to be .500... :)
9 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Probably just lazy or hazy thinking plus the fact that your hypothetical team would have to lose ten straight games to be at true .500.
But, I agree, it is an erroneous way to look at where a team is in relation to a .500 record.
Source(s): Just a guy in agreement with question. - 1 decade ago
It's just bookkeeping. When everyone (worth acknowledging) uses the same system, there really is not a problem.
Plus, the method you suggest only works if wins or losses could be taken away; they cannot. The team at 45-55 is indeed ten games under .500 -- it would need to play ten more games (and win them all) to reach the .500 mark again.
It's not about where a team's record could be, it's about where it IS.
Remember, the foul lines and foul poles are fair territory. Does this make sense? Eh, enough sense; baseball, as with any profession, evolves its own argot to capture familiar concepts that, to an outsider or newbie, seem rather weird. Absorbing the language is a mark of inclusion.
----------
"Games relative to .500" does not take the season length into regard. The season happens to be 162 scheduled games, and fans know this, but an equation does not.
- Utter ChaosLv 71 decade ago
It depends on how you look at it.
If a team is 45 and 45 they are at .500. If they are 46-45 then they are 1 game over .500. It would seem weird saying they are 1/2 game over .500.
It's kind of like some people think the 20th century is from 1900 to 1999 while it's actually 1901 to 2100.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You're wrong and the baseball media is right. It goes by record not games played. At the end of the season, if a team is 100-62, they won't be 21 games over .500. Learn the rules of the game before you ask a question like this. Baseball media people know more abou the game than you do.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ?Lv 45 years ago
i admire the Pedroia one. He proved genuinely everyone incorrect. i do no longer think of this is a "that's previous baseball commercial" yet i admire the financial while the gamers are coming up with concepts and Longoria says "a senior promenade, for senior voters."
- Busso RagussoLv 51 decade ago
I was thinking this just the other day myself....I agree its funny and frustrating.
Just goes to show you how much stock you should put into what these people say.
I grew up listening to Harwell and Kaline. Atlanta's announcers are a far cry from those two.
and gibbs.....if it isn't math class, then lets cut it out with all the stats...which is math.
- SarrafzedehkhoeeLv 71 decade ago
The answer is intuitive. The importance is of little matter, and it has become baseball idiom anyway.
- 18 gibbs 20Lv 71 decade ago
Because it's not math class. Traditionally that's how it's done. Fans are used to it that way, they understand it that way and i's perfectly acceptable...
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I don't know why they figure it that way. good question
