What does "number of games over .500" mean?

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
No, it's exactly what it means.

Suppose that you are 12-12; you're at 0.500. Then you win four games. Now you're 16-12, winning four games since you were at 0.500. You are now four games above 0.500.

Yes. It's "number of games you are better (or worse) than when you were last at .500" not "number of games you are above compared to if you had played .500 the entire time"
 

NAF

Beauty Fakes
Sep 30, 2010
2,025
0
No, it's exactly what it means.

Suppose that you are 12-12; you're at 0.500. Then you win four games. Now you're 16-12, winning four games since you were at 0.500. You are now four games above 0.500.

But .500 isn't static as long as you keep winning. .500 is just half. Half of 24 is 12, yes, but it doesn't stay half as you play more games. Half of 28 is 14, not 12. Literally speaking, a team with a 16-12 record has won 2 games more than half, or 2 games over .500. Only in the sports idiom, "over .500" does not mean "more than half", it has come to mean "more than they have lost".
 
Last edited:

NAF

Beauty Fakes
Sep 30, 2010
2,025
0
Yes. It's "number of games you are better (or worse) than when you were last at .500" not "number of games you are above compared to if you had played .500 the entire time"

Oh? And what if you were never at .500?

When sports people talk about games over five hundred, they don't look back in the schedule to find the last time a team was at .500 and start counting forward, they simply look to see how many more wins they have than losses and go with that.
 

NAF

Beauty Fakes
Sep 30, 2010
2,025
0
Have it your way.

Haha. I will! :laugh: Sorry if it comes off as bickering. I really am just trying to come to an understanding of this that I can live with. I figured if there was any place on these boards that could put up with my obsessive literalism and pedantry, it would be the By The Numbers forum.
 

Bear of Bad News

Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
Sep 27, 2005
13,361
26,529
I've got a doctorate in theoretical mathematics, so I can definitely sympathize. :laugh:

There are certain concepts that are technically undefined, but are given a definition because to define something differently would lead to inconsistencies.

For instance, 0! is defined to be equal to one so that combinatorics definitions will work when one argument is zero. Similarly, 0^0 is defined to be equal to one so that exponent rules will work when one argument is zero.

A team at the beginning of the season may be defined to be "at 0.500" because it makes that data point consistent with the rest of the associated terminology.
 

Dooman

Registered User
Mar 8, 2006
640
101
The way I'm starting to think Of it. Is say you were looking at a stats page, and the header for this column was .500.

Is just the short version of "Games to reach .500"
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
I've got a doctorate in theoretical mathematics, so I can definitely sympathize. :laugh:

There are certain concepts that are technically undefined, but are given a definition because to define something differently would lead to inconsistencies.

For instance, 0! is defined to be equal to one so that combinatorics definitions will work when one argument is zero. [/b]Similarly, 0^0 is defined to be equal to one so that exponent rules will work when one argument is zero. [/b]

A team at the beginning of the season may be defined to be "at 0.500" because it makes that data point consistent with the rest of the associated terminology.

Reminds me of this page:

http://www.askamathematician.com/20...ematicians-and-high-school-teachers-disagree/

Containing the quote:
Mathematician: Zero raised to the zero power is one. Why? Because mathematicians said so. No really, it’s true.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
The way I'm starting to think Of it. Is say you were looking at a stats page, and the header for this column was .500.

Is just the short version of "Games to reach .500"

Yes, exactly.

"How many games do I need to win (or lose) to get to .500?" I am that number of games above or below .500.
 

NAF

Beauty Fakes
Sep 30, 2010
2,025
0
I've got a doctorate in theoretical mathematics, so I can definitely sympathize. :laugh:

There are certain concepts that are technically undefined, but are given a definition because to define something differently would lead to inconsistencies.

For instance, 0! is defined to be equal to one so that combinatorics definitions will work when one argument is zero. Similarly, 0^0 is defined to be equal to one so that exponent rules will work when one argument is zero.

A team at the beginning of the season may be defined to be "at 0.500" because it makes that data point consistent with the rest of the associated terminology.

Oh, I think I'm going to like this forum. :laugh::handclap:
 

NAF

Beauty Fakes
Sep 30, 2010
2,025
0
As I wrote earlier, this is the exact equation you need to calculate how many games you need to win to be 12 games over 500.

It works for any games over .500 and under .500 and at .500

I'm no math professor, but I think your calculation is broken.

x + y = 82

x= y +12


I'm assuming that x=wins and y=losses. So to plug in actual numbers:

41 + 41 = 82

so therefore

41 = 41 + 12

:huh:

Did you mean to write:

x + y = 82

82 — y = x

Because, if so, then, well, yeah. Obviously. That's pretty basic. But what does that have to do with games over/under .500?

Anyway, I don't really need help with my math. I can do basic calculations. If anything this is a question of semantics, or usage, not mathematics. I'm an extremely literal guy. To a fault. I've got degrees in English and Education. I've worked as a teacher and as a journalist and newspaper editor. So when I hear the words "games over .500" I just parse it as:

"games" = "games"

"over" = "more than" / "greater than"

".500" = "1/2" or "half"

So when I hear that a team has "gone 12 games over .500" I've always understood it to mean the team has "won 12 more games than half".

I understand now that my understanding is too literal, and that the phrase is used idiomatically to either refer to the number of wins minus the number of losses or to refer to how many wins/losses will be needed in the (real or hypothetical) future in order to achieve a record of .500.

Is that not accurate? Honest question. Because if this isn't an idiomatic expression that is not to be taken literally, then I'm right back to square one and just as confused as I was in the first place. :help:
 
Last edited:

Bear of Bad News

Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
Sep 27, 2005
13,361
26,529
I'm no math professor, but I think your calculation is broken.

His calculation is not broken.

He was giving the calculations necessary to figure out how many wins and losses were required to be (1) twelve games over 0.500 (2) after an 82-game season.

You have two equations and two unknowns, so (if the problem is well-formed) you will have one pair of numbers that satisfy the two equations (think linear algebra).

Therefore, just plugging in "any numbers" - or in particular, plugging in two numbers where it's clear that the result does not satisfy condition (1) above (like x=41 and y=41) - will not work.

However, you can use his two formulas to find the number of wins (x) and number of losses (y) that result in being twelve games above 0.500 after 82 games:

x + y = 82
x - y = 12

x + y = 82
x = 12 + y (rearranging the second formula)

(12 + y) + y = 82 (substituting for x in the first formula)

12 + 2y = 82

2y = 70
y = 35
x = 12 + y, so x = 47

Gives you the unique result (47 wins, 35 losses) that simultaneously satisfy (1) being twelve games over 0.500 and (2) an 82-game season.

More clear?
 

ottawa

Avatar of the Year*
Nov 7, 2012
33,703
10,208
Orléans/Toronto
Think of it this way...Games played = point total = .500


If team X has 50 points, then any combination of wins, losses and OTL can make them .500 so long as its in the span of 50 games.

.500: GP = Point total
20-20-10 (50GP, 50P)
25-25-0 (50GP, 50P)
22-22-6 (50GP, 50P)

Under .500: GP > Point total
15-30-5 (50GP, 35P)
20-25-5 (50GP, 45P)

Over .500: GP < Point total
25-15-10 (50GP, 60P)
30-12-8 (50GP, 68P)
 

NAF

Beauty Fakes
Sep 30, 2010
2,025
0
More clear?

Oh! Yeah, actually! Thanks! :cheers:

Follow up question: wouldn't it be more strictly accurate to say that these are the calculations used to determine the number of wins (x) when one knows the total number of games played (82) and that the number of wins is 12 greater than the number of losses? Introducing the phrase "games over .500" just begs the question, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:

Beerfish

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
19,513
5,665
The use of the time honored measurement of .500 for hockey is meaningless in my opinion. Unless you clearly make some definitions at the very beginning of any discussion. (Such as do you include ot/so wins but not loses etc.) To be meaningful the good old loser point has to be taken into account.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
One of the tricks of .500 in the NHL comes with the scoring system. Since .500 is usually defined at a team earning 1 point per game, or a team having more wins than regulation losses.

However that means a team that is below average at every phase of the game can still be considered above .500

Take a team that has 30 regulation wins, 35 regulation losses, 3 overtime wins, 6 overtime losses, 3 shootout wins, and 5 shootout losses. This team's record is 36-35-11, earning them 83 points and putting them 1 game above .500, despite having a losing record in every type of game (regulation, OT and shootout)

Some choose to define .500 instead as more wins than losses (of any kind) although that has the kink of being theoretically possible that a team that's below 500 (40 wins, 42 losses) wins the President's trophy is all of those 42 losses are in OT/SO (40-0-42 = 122 points)

This is partially solved if we switch to Soccer style standings with 3 points for a regulation win, 0 for a regulation loss, 2 for a OT/SO win and 1 for a OT/SO loss. Under this system a team like above would have a record of 30-35-6-11, earning them 113 points compared to the 123 that would be earned by a 41-41 team.

But this brings up another question, does .500 mean more regulation wins than regulation losses? Or more total wins than total losses? Or would it mean earning half your available points?

If standings are Reg wins - Reg Losses - OT/SO wins - OT/SO Losses), is a team that finishes the season at 0-21-61-0 a sub .500 team? Is a team that finishes the season at 0-20-62-0 an above .500 team? Is a team that finishes 20-0-1-61 a .500 team? Is a team that finishes 40-39-1-2 an above .500 team?
 

NAF

Beauty Fakes
Sep 30, 2010
2,025
0
One of the tricks of .500 in the NHL comes with the scoring system. Since .500 is usually defined at a team earning 1 point per game, or a team having more wins than regulation losses.

However that means a team that is below average at every phase of the game can still be considered above .500

Take a team that has 30 regulation wins, 35 regulation losses, 3 overtime wins, 6 overtime losses, 3 shootout wins, and 5 shootout losses. This team's record is 36-35-11, earning them 83 points and putting them 1 game above .500, despite having a losing record in every type of game (regulation, OT and shootout)

Some choose to define .500 instead as more wins than losses (of any kind) although that has the kink of being theoretically possible that a team that's below 500 (40 wins, 42 losses) wins the President's trophy is all of those 42 losses are in OT/SO (40-0-42 = 122 points)

This is partially solved if we switch to Soccer style standings with 3 points for a regulation win, 0 for a regulation loss, 2 for a OT/SO win and 1 for a OT/SO loss. Under this system a team like above would have a record of 30-35-6-11, earning them 113 points compared to the 123 that would be earned by a 41-41 team.

But this brings up another question, does .500 mean more regulation wins than regulation losses? Or more total wins than total losses? Or would it mean earning half your available points?

If standings are Reg wins - Reg Losses - OT/SO wins - OT/SO Losses), is a team that finishes the season at 0-21-61-0 a sub .500 team? Is a team that finishes the season at 0-20-62-0 an above .500 team? Is a team that finishes 20-0-1-61 a .500 team? Is a team that finishes 40-39-1-2 an above .500 team?

All very, very good questions. :thumbu:
 

Hammer Time

Registered User
May 3, 2011
3,957
10
So if there are two teams in the standings at 10-10 and 8-12, the team at 8-12 is "two games behind" the team at 10-10 but "four games below .500".

English is a confusing language.
 

Dooman

Registered User
Mar 8, 2006
640
101
So if there are two teams in the standings at 10-10 and 8-12, the team at 8-12 is "two games behind" the team at 10-10 but "four games below .500".

English is a confusing language.

This isn't English, its sports. :-P
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
So if there are two teams in the standings at 10-10 and 8-12, the team at 8-12 is "two games behind" the team at 10-10 but "four games below .500".

English is a confusing language.

10-10 is referred to as being 2 games behind 8-12 because it would take the 8-12 team winning 2 games *against* the 10-10 team to make them equal, but at that point they would both be below .500.

However if the 10-10 team wasn't playing it would take the 8-12 team 4 games to get equal (10-10 vs 12-12) thus the 8-12 team is 4 games below .500.
 

theranfordflop

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
3,567
1
Vancouver
Okay, let's try this a different way.

What does .500 represent? It is a statistical representation of a completely "middle of the road" team at any moment in the season, a team that wins some games, and loses the exact same amount of games. Record could be 2-2 or 500-500. It all means the same. Whatever opportunity that team has had to distinguish itself as a good or bad team, they've taken that opportunity and... results are statistically inconclusive. ;)

So when you say, "X wins over .500", it actually means "X more wins than if we were a completely middle of the road team".

Now we all know .500 is NOT a middle of the road team in the NHL, it's actually quite bad. I want to stress that .500 is just an arbitrary marker. It's only significant because our puny humanoid brains need simple, pure concepts to understand the world, so we pick simple numbers to relate things to. So we use .500 because... Well what's more simple and pure than that? You win some, you lose some.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
Okay, let's try this a different way.

What does .500 represent? It is a statistical representation of a completely "middle of the road" team at any moment in the season, a team that wins some games, and loses the exact same amount of games. Record could be 2-2 or 500-500. It all means the same. Whatever opportunity that team has had to distinguish itself as a good or bad team, they've taken that opportunity and... results are statistically inconclusive. ;)

So when you say, "X wins over .500", it actually means "X more wins than if we were a completely middle of the road team".

Now we all know .500 is NOT a middle of the road team in the NHL, it's actually quite bad. I want to stress that .500 is just an arbitrary marker. It's only significant because our puny humanoid brains need simple, pure concepts to understand the world, so we pick simple numbers to relate things to. So we use .500 because... Well what's more simple and pure than that? You win some, you lose some.

No, that's not what it means.

It means X wins (or losses) are required to bring you back to .500
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->