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

[theranfordflop]

No, that's not what it means.

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

Yes it is exactly what it means. It's no different from what you said, only again, you haven't explained the part that is actually confusing the OP in the first place: What does .500 mean?

So you can keep giving that definition, and the OP can continue to say, "oh so it's wins or losses needed to bring you back to half. So if a team is 10-0, they need 5 wins to get to half", and on and on.

 

[Brainiac]

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".

The bolded is where your interpretation cause you some problems. 0.500 is not 'half'. Sounds like something is 'lost in translation' between math and language, though!

 

[NAF]

The bolded is where your interpretation cause you some problems. 0.500 is not 'half'. Sounds like something is 'lost in translation' between math and language, though!

Nah, I think .500 does mean "half" (of the available points). I just think that my understanding of "over" as meaning "more/greater than" was wrong.

I think if you define "over" (or "under", for that matter) to mean "away from" then it all makes sense, linguistically and mathematically.

No?

 

[youvegotit]

10.

The thing that bothers me is when a fan says their 12-12-6 team is .500.

 

[Kane One]

At first I wanted to vote 10, then I thought I should (and actually did) vote for 5, and now I'm positive the answer is 10.

If you're 12-11, you're 1 game above .500 because losing 1 game would put you back at .500.

A team that's 10-0 needs to lose 10 games to be .500, so they're 10 games above .500.

 

[Dooman]

10.

The thing that bothers me is when a fan says their 12-12-6 team is .500.

Except.... They are right

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Except.... They are right

Exactly.

"0.500" doesn't mean that a team is average.

"0.500" means that a team has earned half of the points available to it.

In most sports, these are interchangeable, of course.

 

[billybobjoe2112]

I am beyond confused.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I am beyond confused.

On which part(s)?

 

[cujoflutie]

Exactly.

"0.500" doesn't mean that a team is average.

"0.500" means that a team has earned half of the points available to it.

In most sports, these are interchangeable, of course.

First off AWESOME alias

Secondly you're right. Ties used to be considered a neutral result. So after a tie, the team would remain with the same number of games above/below .500 as they were before hand. Now an OTL is considered the neutral result.


If people having trouble wrapping their heads around being above/below .500 at the end of the year thing of it this way; a 60-22 team is 38 games above .500 because they won 38 more games than they lost.

 

[Tawnos]

NAF, you're simply coming at it from the wrong direction. You're thinking of .500 in terms of what could have been. The rest of us are thinking of it in terms of what has actually happened.

 

[aleshemsky83]

So you're saying by the correct definition,

if you're 6-5, you would be 1/2 a game over .500

Yeah I just don't like that.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So you're saying by the correct definition,

if you're 6-5, you would be 1/2 a game over .500

Yeah I just don't like that.

By the correct definition, you'd be one game over 0.500.

 

[iggyDDS]

Mathematically speaking 10-0 is a bad example to give. .500 implies an even record (ie 10-10). 10-0 in sports is probably 10 games over 500 however if you really think about it, it's 10 games over 0. An 0-0 record isn't .500 but rather 0% lol.
So the answer should be neither haha.
If you were to say 11-1, then yes... you are 10 games over a .500 record (1-1).
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

An 0-0 record isn't .500 but rather 0% lol.

Well, not 0% (just as much as it's not 50%). See earlier in this thread.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

But this is hockey, therefore loser points must be taken into consideration!

 

[Bear of Bad News]

But this is hockey, therefore loser points must be taken into consideration!

It depends - if you define "0.500" as "earning half of the points that are available", then the point awarded for making it to overtime are already accounted for.

 

[NAF]

NAF, you're simply coming at it from the wrong direction. You're thinking of .500 in terms of what could have been. The rest of us are thinking of it in terms of what has actually happened.

With respect, I don't think that's right. I think my understand is based on what has actually happened, whereas the commonly used and accepted understanding is based on what will/might/would need to happen in the future in order to arrive at .500.

 

[aleshemsky83]

With respect, I don't think that's right. I think my understand is based on what has actually happened, whereas the commonly used and accepted understanding is based on what will/might/would need to happen in the future in order to arrive at .500.

This is confusing me now, please clear this up

So

At 6-5

How many games over .500 would a team be

Now

How many games over .500 would that team be at 7-5


And another one,

How many games over 500 would a team be at 11-0 and 12-0, one and two respectively? If a team at 11-0 is 1 game over .500,would a team at 6-5 be one tenth of a game over 500?

 

[Hammer79]

The problem is, when there are an odd number of games played, it's not possible to be .500. 10-0 is 10 games over, even though I accidentally voted 5. That said, the change of outcome of 5 games brings that team to .500.

The way I've been looking at it though is points percentage, ie points earned (OTL SOL's included)/total possible points that could be earned. If a team is 15-5-10, are they truly a .500 team if they have 40 points and a 15-15-0 team has 30?

 

[Tawnos]

With respect, I don't think that's right. I think my understand is based on what has actually happened, whereas the commonly used and accepted understanding is based on what will/might/would need to happen in the future in order to arrive at .500.

No. Your understanding is based on a team's record with respect to a hypothetical situation where they, instead, won 50% of their games. The real meaning is based on a team's actual wins with respect to their actual losses.

 

[youvegotit]

Except.... They are right

Except they are not imo. 12 wins and 18 losses is imo not .500. Showing it as 12-12-6 does nothing to change that fact the the "6" represents losses.


I'm sure the argument will be made that .500 is when you've earned half of the possible points but if you just look at more then one team the definition of .500 changes if you actually account for 3 points games.


ex) Lets look at the NHL standing

Using the points definition of .500


Total games played = 800
Theoretical .500 per team = 800 / 30 = 26.667 points / team


Actual total points awarded = 898
Actual .500 per team = 898 / 30 = 29.933 points / team



Therefore a team like Philly at 12-12-2 (26 pts) is not .500 even when using half of the possible points definition.




IMO you can't ignore the fact that there are 29 other teams in the league when defining .500 using the half of the possible points argument.

 

[NAF]

No. Your understanding is based on a team's record with respect to a hypothetical situation where they, instead, won 50% of their games. The real meaning is based on a team's actual wins with respect to their actual losses.

My understanding was based on the simple math (the only kind of math I'm any good at, BTW ) of figuring out how many more games than half (.500) a team has actually won. That's really it. Since half of 10 is 5, I figured a team with a 10-0 record had won 5 more games than half, and was therefore 5 games over half, or .500.

There was nothing hypothetical or conditional about my understanding, though. When I was saying "they are 5 games over .500" I was saying "they have won 5 more than half of their games." When most people say "they are 5 games over .500" they are saying "the team would need to lose their next five games in order to have won half of their games at that point."

My understanding was simply describing what has happened. As I've already conceded, my understanding was mistaken, in that the accepted usage defines "over" as "away from", not "more than". But it is the common usage of the term that is filled with conditionals and hypotheticals, not mine.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Except they are not imo. 12 wins and 18 losses is imo not .500. Showing it as 12-12-6 does nothing to change that fact the the "6" represents losses.

What's your definition of "0.500"? See my post a few above:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=74875083

 

[youvegotit]

What's your definition of "0.500"? See my post a few above:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=74875083

My definition of .500 is a team with an equal amount of wins and losses and in most sports that coincides with half of the available points a team can earn.

However imo the half of the available points definition is incorrect in the NHL as some games a total 2 points are awarded whereas other games a total of 3 points are. If you only look at one team the definition holds true. However it ignores the fact 3 point games exist. The only way I would ever use the half the available points definition was if I were to include all 30 teams to account for 3 point games.