Oilers win by a touchdown.

[Diamondillium]

Well I've learned one thing from this thread. Math is more entertaining for most posters then the oilers right now.

I'm not gonna lie, I've actually been thoroughly intrigued by all of this, and the surprise twist ending that the commonly accepted way is not the method that seems most mathematically logical was a twist ending worthy of an M. Knight Shyamalan movie.

 

[NAF]

Its on Wikipedia so it must be right.
He is using a common saying and how he describes the saying is how it works. Just because it may be illogical to you doesn't mean its invalid. It's just a quick way of knowing how a team is doing. Being inflammatory and acting like you are smarter then everyone just shows how little you know. Despite what you think we understand basic math its you who doesn't understand a pretty common reference

So because the millennia-old logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum has an entry on Wikipedia (boo! hiss!), you're free to ignore it. Gotcha.

Also, thanks for clearing up my misconception that just because an argument is demonstrably illogical, it is therefore invalid. Silly me.

 

[Dooman]

I'm not gonna lie, I've actually been thoroughly intrigued by all of this, and the surprise twist ending that the commonly accepted way is not the method that seems most mathematically logical was a twist ending worthy of an M. Knight Shyamalan movie.

Ya, just google "over .500 tsn"

I was thoroughly surprised when I noticed the quotes.

 

[NAF]

I'm not gonna lie, I've actually been thoroughly intrigued by all of this, and the surprise twist ending that the commonly accepted way is not the method that seems most mathematically logical was a twist ending worthy of an M. Knight Shyamalan movie.

haha. Yeah. I didn't see that one coming either.

I'm having a particularly hard time letting this one go, because it's math. Usually these boards are all about arguing entirely subjective, unprovable, qualitative opinions. But this is math. Objective. Provable. Quantitative. It's right or it's wrong. 38/2 doesn't stop being 19 just because it loses focus under pressure or doesn't go to the tough areas. It just is. And yet people are arguing that it isn't. It's wild.

 

[Aequitas]

So because the millennia-old logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum has an entry on Wikipedia (boo! hiss!), you're free to ignore it. Gotcha.

Also, thanks for clearing up my misconception that just because an argument is demonstrably illogical, it is therefore invalid. Silly me.

Once again that was just a waste of a post because as i pointed out this isnt a math equation with a right or wrong answer it was what does the term above .500 mean. And even though mathematically what you posted is correct the actual use is how he described. Feel free to find an article where they use that statment and it makes sense with the math. You wont. Maybe i am wrong but I have never heard anyone use it your way so yes in this argument the popular choice wins because it was an argument on which use of the phrase is correct.

Also In my opinion your argument was illogical comparing apples to games played is absurd. You can take apple's and give them back you can't replay games. So the only way a record will change is by addition (either loss or win) so saying you are 5 games over .500 when the only possible way of getting to .500 would be to lose 5 games makes perfect sense.

 

[NAF]

Ya, just google "over .500 tsn"

I was thoroughly surprised when I noticed the quotes.

I'm not surprised. People get stuff wrong all the time. Most people think that Frankenstein is the name of the monster, and that Edison invented the light bulb. Doesn't make it true.

 

[Dooman]

haha. Yeah. I didn't see that one coming either.

I'm having a particularly hard time letting this one go, because it's math. Usually these boards are all about arguing entirely subjective, unprovable, qualitative opinions. But this is math. Objective. Provable. Quantitative. It's right or it's wrong. 38/2 doesn't stop being 19 just because it loses focus under pressure or doesn't go to the tough areas. It just is. And yet people are arguing that it isn't. It's wild.

http://www.tsn.ca/nba/story/?id=435792
And here's the quote

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=433179

it took me by surprise too. I can also find them applying it to NHL teams, just with smaller numbers :-P

 

[McDNicks17]

HFoil has hit a new low.

 

[Aequitas]

I could care less what people "feel" is correct and tbh don't really see the point in the argument. What bothered me was people like NAF being condescending to the original poster who used "above .500" the way pretty much everyone in the sports industry uses it. Call it slang call it sports terminology whatever. He used it correctly as he was taught (just like me an anyone else who watches sports) and trying to make people feel stupid because you think a saying is illogical is bs.

 

[Faelko]

I've lost a lot of brain cells reading the past two pages.

Oh no! Must be time for another proposal....

/joking
/sarcasm

Haha?

 

[NAF]

Also In my opinion your argument was illogical comparing apples to games played is absurd. You can take apple's and give them back you can't replay games.

You know that math is abstract, right? If I eat all 20 pieces of chocolate in a box, I don't need to go back in time and physically stop myself from eating them to tell you that I ate 100% of the chocolates, or that the 20 I ate was 10 more than the half I had intended to eat. I don't have to cut off my fingers if I want to subtract from ten.

So the only way a record will change is by addition (either loss or win) so saying you are 5 games over .500 when the only possible way of getting to .500 would be to lose 5 games makes perfect sense.

Who's asking you to change the record? I'm making an objectively true statement about the record. (The current record, not some hypothetical record an indeterminate number of games into the future.) I am stating that a record of 38-0 is 19 games over .500. You are responding with the statement "No, it isn't because 38-38-0 is .500!" Your statement in no way has any bearing on mine. I'm not interested in finding out what needs to be added to my number to make it the same as your number. You might as well be saying that 114-7=107. Yeah, that's true, but it's got nothing to do with my initial statement.

 

[Panda Bear]

HFoil has hit a new low.

I hate intersports breeding.

 

[NAF]

HFoil has hit a new low.

Why? It's an interesting discussion, and hockey-related. Off-topic as hell to a PGT, though, I'll grant you. I'd break it off into its own separate thread, if I were a moderator.

 

[duul]

Oh no! Must be time for another proposal....

/joking
/sarcasm

Haha?

Every single one of my proposals makes our team better.

 

[Dooman]

The scariest part, this all started by someone saying. "in the next 38 games, we need to be 19 games over .500" (to hit 57 points)

And he was right by commonly accepted usage.

 

[Lacaar]

Yakupov looked like the player we saw towards the end of last year.

A complete 180 from the lost puppy he was earlier this year.

Good on him and hopefully he keeps this up and keeps on improving.

 

[Kepler 186f]

I could care less what people "feel" is correct and tbh don't really see the point in the argument. What bothered me was people like NAF being condescending to the original poster who used "above .500" the way pretty much everyone in the sports industry uses it. Call it slang call it sports terminology whatever. He used it correctly as he was taught (just like me an anyone else who watches sports) and trying to make people feel stupid because you think a saying is illogical is bs.

But he didn't leave it at that. Here is the post I responded to.

wow, ok i'll try this one more time, and please people, remember that I was responding to someone else's post about getting 57 pts in 38 games, I wasn't the one throwing those numbers out there, I was just saying what their record would have to be in order to get 57 pts in the next 38 games!!

Here goes... and try to keep up....

if the Oilers go 24-5-9 in the next 38 games, how many points would they get in those 38 games? In case you cant do basic math, its....tada, 57 pts! Now, how many games OVER .500 is that record? Again, in case you aren't good at math (which it looks like many are on here), its...tada...19 games over .500!! (24 - 5 =19 by my math).

same goes for if they went 25-6-7 in the next 38 games, that's 57 pts AND 19 games over .500 (25-6=19 by my math).

ugh, I don't know why i'm even bothering with this, its simple math, but apparently some people just aren't very good at math on here.

His math is wrong. What TSN, CBC, the CIA or anyone else uses as slang or "sports terminology" doesn't matter. He stated that the math is simple and that people here aren't "good" at math. That was what I took issue with.

 

[Aequitas]

The scariest part, this all started by someone saying. "in the next 38 games, we need to be 19 games over .500" (to hit 57 points)

And he was right by commonly accepted usage.

Exactly and people like naf jumped down his throat. I guess he needs to prove he is smarter for some reason. Knowing frankenstein was the creator and Edison didn't invent the lightbulb makes u a better person I guess.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Every single one of my proposals makes our team better.

Then you don't have a good understanding of the word "better"

 

[McDNicks17]

Why? It's an interesting discussion, and hockey-related. Off-topic as hell to a PGT, though, I'll grant you. I'd break it off into its own separate thread, if I were a moderator.

The "By The Numbers" sub-forum would probably be a good spot to discuss it.

 

[Dooman]

But he didn't leave it at that. Here is the post I responded to.



His math is wrong. What TSN, CBC, the CIA or anyone else uses as slang or "sports terminology" doesn't matter. He stated that the math is simple and that people here aren't "good" at math. That was what I took issue with.

Hey, I'm right there with you. You'll see me arguing with him up there.

But TSN, and even the manager of the Royals would theoretically agree with him. That blows me away!

 

[The Joker*]

Actually going to step in here with a comment that surely will help everyone in this discussion..... 0/0 is indeterminate (it could be any value). not the best case to show.

0-0-82 results in 82/164=0.500

And if we want to be more specific it's actually 5.0e-1

 

[The Joker*]

I could care less what people "feel" is correct and tbh don't really see the point in the argument. What bothered me was people like NAF being condescending to the original poster who used "above .500" the way pretty much everyone in the sports industry uses it. Call it slang call it sports terminology whatever. He used it correctly as he was taught (just like me an anyone else who watches sports) and trying to make people feel stupid because you think a saying is illogical is bs.

This statement implies that your care > 0.

 

[Dooman]

0-0-82 results in 82/164=0.500

Now you're just trolling.

 

[Aequitas]

This statement implies that your care > 0.

Ya that's what this forum has become. Instead of responding to what people mean let's pick apart posts trying to make people feel stupid to prove we are right.