Does anyone else hate how in baseball, a team that has a record of 90W-60L is consider 30 games over .500?

Question

I realize that they could lose 30 in a row and still be at .500, but they have played 150 games, 75W-75L would be .500. A team at 90-60 would have a 15-game lead in the standings over a team at 75-75, they are 15 games over .500, not 30.

Look, I am basically just arguing semantics here, and I realize that. But my point is, after 150 games, 75-75 would be .500. Going 90-60 isn't 30 games above that, it is only 15. How many "games above .500" a team is shouldn't be a simple subtraction of wins in loses. It should be based on what a .500 record would be for the number of games they have played and how many games above that record they are.

Answer 1

You are right in that it is a misleading why to represent it. I've always hated that terminology. Because if you are 90-60, you are 15 games over 500 (75-75) just like you say.

I guess in the old days, baseball people and writers didn't tend to be math wizards.

It is somewhat useful. It is amazing to know that the '98 Yankees were 75 games over 500 - as long as you understand that means they won 75 more games then they lost. But it gets confusing when you compare the records of two teams.

If one team is 90-60, they are 30 games over 500. If another team is 88-62, they are 26 games over 500. That makes it seam like the first team is 4 games ahead of the second team but they are only 2 games ahead. The "games over" term basically counts a loss twice - as one fewer win and one more loss.

Answer 2

I explained this in a previous answer. Games over .500 isn't the same as games ahead of another team. But you do use games over .500 to figure out how many games ahead a team is. Using your figures, the team at 90-60 is 30 games over .500, while the team at 75-75 is at .500. Subtract zero (The number of games over .500 the 75-75 team is) from 30 (The number of games above .500 the 90-30 team is), then divide by two. That gives you the games ahead the better team is, 15.

Answer 3

I'm sorry you don't like the way it works, but you can't change mathematics because you don't.

You answered your own question, "I realize that they could lose 30 in a row and still be at .500".

Hence, 30 games over .500.

If they were to lose 15 games in a row, by your reasoning, they should be tied with the 2nd place team, regardless of how well they played. There are so many things wrong with your logic.

Not sure what you don't get about this.


information_police, how do you figure a 90-60 team is only 15 games over .500?????

By your logic, if a team was 50-50 and won 5 in a row (55-50) would they only be 2.5 games over .500?

In the scenario you mentioned, the team is 2 games ahead, BUT a combination of 4 losses and wins combined ahead. In order for the team that's 2 games back to make up those 2 games, they need a combination of 2 wins by them, and 2 losses by the other team (hence the 4).

Your answer makes no sense.
.

Answer 4

I think the confusion comes in because there is either a win or a loss, period. It would be less confusing to you, I believe, if there was a tie in baseball. Consider this:

If there was a possibility of a tie – a 90-60 team would be 30 games over .500 because if they had tied 15 of those 90 wins they would be 75-60-15, or, 15 games over .500. If they had tied 30 of those 90 wins they would be 60-60-30 or, exactly at .500. Hence, they are 30 games over .500.

Similarly, if they only lost 15 of those 90 wins, they would be 75-75-0 – exactly at .500, which would seem to indicate they are only 15 games over 500. BUT – if 15 of the losses had been ties, they would have the same number of losses (60) and their record would be 75-60-15 or still 15 games over .500.

When you factor in the possibility of ties into the equation, the math makes a little more sense. Hope this helps.

Answer 5

Ummm....they are 30 games over .500. They would be 15 games ahead IN THE STANDINGS.

EDIT: You're talking about 2 different things in your question. Record-wise, the 90-60 team is 30 games over .500. In the standings, however, if Team A is 90-60 and ahead of Team B 75-75, Team B would have to win 15 games & Team A would have to lose 15 games in order for the teams to be tied atop the standings. If Team A lost 15 in a row & Team B won 15 in a row, they would each have identical 90-75 records. Each team, however, would be 15 games over .500 record-wise, while being tied in the standings.

Answer 6

A team that is 1-1 is at .500. If said team wins 5 in a row, they are 5 over .500. A team that is 60-60 is at .500. If you win 30 straight games, you are (90-60) thirty games over five hundred.....Not 15. They say that when it comes to individual teams...not standings.

Answer 7

i admire hating the purple Sox. i actually stay in Beantown now and have many acquaintances from right here and the conversations approximately which team is greater effective on no account end. i admire the (knowledgeable) arguments we've. I definately appreciate their historic past and their skill to play great baseball. i do no longer appreciate followers that take all of it too individually and finally end up hurting others because of the fact of it. Yelling Yankees suck in Qunicy marketplace when I positioned on my hat is great. i like it. entering right into a combat over that's stupid. i do no longer think of it may be as exciting being a fan if there wasn't the opposition... besides, I actual have got here upon myself desiring the Sox to win whilst enjoying the Rays. i could rather have the Sox interior the playoffs with the Yanks than the Rays...

Answer 8

I think I just got dumber trying to read that question!
Last I checked 90-60 is 30 which means they are 30 games over 500!!!

Answer 9

Why does it bother you that a team is over .500? It is just a scale to go by to measure how a team is doing compare to average.

Answer 10

What the first guy said is right...thanks for the two points!