PDA

View Full Version : Let's Be Careful, Sox Faithful


RedHeadPaleHoser
04-22-2005, 07:49 AM
I, like everyone on here, is elated with the record, the overall team performance, the instant spark we're seeing out of Pods, El Duque, Garland....the list goes on. I look forward to finding a radio or a TV until I can physically get to the park. But, THIS IS CHICAGO. This team will hit bumps; 3-5 game losing streaks, hitting slumps, pitchers getting rocked, etc.

If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead. I just want ALL OF US to remain focused on the SEASON. 162 games is a marathon, not a sprint. Every team basically starts out 54-54. It's what we do in the remaining 54 games that wins championships. No one wants to think about the bad, and I'm not being a pessimist, just a realist.

(puts soapbox away)
:) Now, Let's dethrone the Royals.

Kuzman
04-22-2005, 08:12 AM
We're not gonna lose the rest of the season. This thread sucks!

:tongue:

fquaye149
04-22-2005, 08:48 AM
I, like everyone on here, is elated with the record, the overall team performance, the instant spark we're seeing out of Pods, El Duque, Garland....the list goes on. I look forward to finding a radio or a TV until I can physically get to the park. But, THIS IS CHICAGO. This team will hit bumps; 3-5 game losing streaks, hitting slumps, pitchers getting rocked, etc.

If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead. I just want ALL OF US to remain focused on the SEASON. 162 games is a marathon, not a sprint. Every team basically starts out 54-54. It's what we do in the remaining 54 games that wins championships. No one wants to think about the bad, and I'm not being a pessimist, just a realist.

(puts soapbox away)
:) Now, Let's dethrone the Royals.

sounds good. i too am sick of the "is this the best team ever?" and "how will chicago react when sox win ws" threads. However, they don't bother me nearly enough as the "fire ozzie" and "does this team lack the [insert attribute here...probably killer instinct]" threads that will inevitably surface the moment this winning streak ends.

Balance, I guess.

Malgar 12
04-22-2005, 08:53 AM
I, like everyone on here, is elated with the record, the overall team performance, the instant spark we're seeing out of Pods, El Duque, Garland....the list goes on. I look forward to finding a radio or a TV until I can physically get to the park. But, THIS IS CHICAGO. This team will hit bumps; 3-5 game losing streaks, hitting slumps, pitchers getting rocked, etc.

If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead. I just want ALL OF US to remain focused on the SEASON. 162 games is a marathon, not a sprint. Every team basically starts out 54-54. It's what we do in the remaining 54 games that wins championships. No one wants to think about the bad, and I'm not being a pessimist, just a realist.

(puts soapbox away)
:) Now, Let's dethrone the Royals.

I think you're right to say stay positive, without getting overexcited, but can I be the first to nominate "162 games is a marathon, not a sprint." as a cliche that should never be used again! :D:

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-22-2005, 09:01 AM
I think you're right to say stay positive, without getting overexcited, but can I be the first to nominate "162 games is a marathon, not a sprint." as a cliche that should never be used again! :D:

I take no offense in that whatsoever - how about, "It's April, not September"?

elrod
04-22-2005, 09:07 AM
I won't get too excited until the Oakland series. If we come out of there winning two of three then I'll know these guys are for real.

Malgar 12
04-22-2005, 09:09 AM
I take no offense in that whatsoever - how about, "It's April, not September"?

much less tired! Thanks! :wink:

Cosmo
04-22-2005, 09:09 AM
Only spring - yes, but I'll take some fun, quality baseball and a winning streak anytime... I'll worry about next month - next month.

'nuf said

itsnotrequired
04-22-2005, 09:11 AM
I won't get too excited until the Oakland series. If we come out of there winning two of three then I'll know these guys are for real.

That will be a huge test for this team. We all know how shoddy the past teams have played out in Oakland. They were 1-5 in 2004, 1-2 in 2003, 0-6 in 2002, 0-3 in 2001, etc.

MeanFish
04-22-2005, 09:13 AM
I, like everyone on here, is elated with the record, the overall team performance, the instant spark we're seeing out of Pods, El Duque, Garland....the list goes on. I look forward to finding a radio or a TV until I can physically get to the park. But, THIS IS CHICAGO. This team will hit bumps; 3-5 game losing streaks, hitting slumps, pitchers getting rocked, etc.

If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead. I just want ALL OF US to remain focused on the SEASON. 162 games is a marathon, not a sprint. Every team basically starts out 54-54. It's what we do in the remaining 54 games that wins championships. No one wants to think about the bad, and I'm not being a pessimist, just a realist.

(puts soapbox away)
:) Now, Let's dethrone the Royals.

I think what has a lot of people on this board crawling out of their shells is a few things that differentiate last year's team from this year's team.

1.) Juan Uribe - Last year, we got off to a hot start early partially because this dude hit .400 through April.

2.) Depth - This year, we don't really face the threat of Joe Borchard et. al in RF. Also, if a pitcher DOES go down, heaven forbid, we've got McCarthy in the minors just begging for a chance to come up and pitch serviceably. Last year's team was always "an injury away from falling out" and we got hit with a two-for-one sale on IR visits.

3.) 5 GOOD starting pitchers - Where we had a rotation built around Buehrle, a potential one year wonder in Loaiza, an initially overperforming Garland, and an injury prone Scott Schoeneweis with no fifth starter in sight last year, we have five good pitchers, with only one who is probably overperforming and only one with a chance to spend time on the DL.

4.) Fundamentals - We haven't been getting runs when we need them because of luck. Uribe's bunt yesterday that got the two runners over for Pods to hit in was possibly the biggest play of the game.

Some of us seem ridiculously excited. I think that's because, with the way this team is playing, we can't see them playing under .500 ball for any extended period of time during the course of the season. We're *so* consistent that we're in EVERY game. And we're not even hitting that well yet! This team isn't even firing on all cylinders, and hitting is the one thing we were almost certain WOULD produce this year.

Sometimes it is scary when you realize you're talking like a Cubs fan. However, considering that our team is performing within their potential as opposed to playing WAY over their heads, it's hard to NOT be ecstatic just thinking about what that could mean for the whole season.

tstrike2000
04-22-2005, 09:14 AM
We've had a couple of good April's the last few years, including '00, 02', and last year. Like many others, I think this year's team is for real, but a good three month stretch of April, May, June will give a better indication whether this team is for real or not. Also, because it'll show how this team is going to do with both Everett and Hurt in the lineup.

veeter
04-22-2005, 09:15 AM
Slumps, 3-5 game losing streaks and bumps along the way have NOTHING to do with the Sox being from Chicago. Everyone on this site knows they will have some bad games. But ALL teams have bad times during the year. I am getting excited and am riding this beautiful wave as long as it goes on. In 1984 the Tigers started out 35-5, although they still had 122 games left the season was over. I'm hoping the Sox do something like that. KW has built a team IMO that should avoid long periods of bad play. Go Sox!!!!

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-22-2005, 09:27 AM
Slumps, 3-5 game losing streaks and bumps along the way have NOTHING to do with the Sox being from Chicago. Everyone on this site knows they will have some bad games. But ALL teams have bad times during the year. I am getting excited and am riding this beautiful wave as long as it goes on. In 1984 the Tigers started out 35-5, although they still had 122 games left the season was over. I'm hoping the Sox do something like that. KW has built a team IMO that should avoid long periods of bad play. Go Sox!!!!

I am in agreement with you that KW has done a great job doing what he can to put competition on the field. No one can ever say KW never tried to make changes - he did it, he lives with it, he takes the heat for it and has said so. I want to see this team weather the storm also - for the long haul. I just don't want to see the panic button get pushed by fans when it does get tough.

Maximo
04-22-2005, 09:44 AM
I think the abilities of the 5 starting pitchers, combined with the "grinder" attitude that this team seems to possess, will keep the Sox from going on long losing streaks.

Like everyone else, I know what's happening at the moment can't continue and the Sox will hit some "bumps in the road". However, I look at the season in 20 game segments. There are eight of them and if the Sox can get through half of them 11-9 with several 12-8 stretches sprinkled in between, they'll be in the AL Central race all year long. I am of the belief this team is capable of doing just that.

gosox41
04-22-2005, 09:48 AM
I, like everyone on here, is elated with the record, the overall team performance, the instant spark we're seeing out of Pods, El Duque, Garland....the list goes on. I look forward to finding a radio or a TV until I can physically get to the park. But, THIS IS CHICAGO. This team will hit bumps; 3-5 game losing streaks, hitting slumps, pitchers getting rocked, etc.

If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead. I just want ALL OF US to remain focused on the SEASON. 162 games is a marathon, not a sprint. Every team basically starts out 54-54. It's what we do in the remaining 54 games that wins championships. No one wants to think about the bad, and I'm not being a pessimist, just a realist.

(puts soapbox away)
:) Now, Let's dethrone the Royals.

Good post. It's surprising how wishy washy some Sox fans can be. The team starts off great and we're already discussing how to celebrate a WS. The team starts off slowly and the sky is falling.


There has been a lot of good with the team this year, namely hte starting pitching. But there have also been some holes that have been glossed over because of this hot start. Even I refrained from breaking them down and I'm pretty critical. I will wait a bit before I get to excited/disappointed. I want to see how this team handles adversity. Everyone gets along when you win.


Bob

SoxFan78
04-22-2005, 10:23 AM
All I have to say is this.

You can't win a division in April, but you sure can lose one with a bad start.

thecell
04-22-2005, 10:26 AM
I, like everyone on here, is elated with the record, the overall team performance, the instant spark we're seeing out of Pods, El Duque, Garland....the list goes on. I look forward to finding a radio or a TV until I can physically get to the park. But, THIS IS CHICAGO. This team will hit bumps; 3-5 game losing streaks, hitting slumps, pitchers getting rocked, etc.

If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead. I just want ALL OF US to remain focused on the SEASON. 162 games is a marathon, not a sprint. Every team basically starts out 54-54. It's what we do in the remaining 54 games that wins championships. No one wants to think about the bad, and I'm not being a pessimist, just a realist.

(puts soapbox away)
:) Now, Let's dethrone the Royals.

Screw that! My team is doing good and I'm going to enjoy it! When they go through tough times I'll deal with it then. I don't go through life worrying about what may happen down the line. That's no way to be a Sox fan and certainly no way to live!

GO SOX!!

TommyJohn
04-22-2005, 10:29 AM
I, like everyone on here, is elated with the record, the overall team performance, the instant spark we're seeing out of Pods, El Duque, Garland....the list goes on. I look forward to finding a radio or a TV until I can physically get to the park. But, THIS IS CHICAGO. This team will hit bumps; 3-5 game losing streaks, hitting slumps, pitchers getting rocked, etc.

If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead. I just want ALL OF US to remain focused on the SEASON. 162 games is a marathon, not a sprint. Every team basically starts out 54-54. It's what we do in the remaining 54 games that wins championships. No one wants to think about the bad, and I'm not being a pessimist, just a realist.

(puts soapbox away)
:) Now, Let's dethrone the Royals.

No offense, RHPH, but I think you just set a record for most consecutive
cliches in one post.

Mickster
04-22-2005, 10:31 AM
Just be realistic. If the Sox can somehow manage to be 10 games over .500 at the end of April, then they only need to play .500 ball the rest of the way to have 92 wins.

You can't win the WS in April but you can put yourself behind the 8 ball.

voodoochile
04-22-2005, 10:34 AM
Screw that! My team is doing good and I'm going to enjoy it! When they go through tough times I'll deal with it then. I don't go through life worrying about what may happen down the line. That's no way to be a Sox fan and certainly no way to live!

GO SOX!!

This post rules!

Live in the now people.

Right NOW the Sox are 2 games up in first. Love that for what it is...

and I agree...

GO SOX!!

voodoochile
04-22-2005, 10:35 AM
Just be realistic. If the Sox can somehow manage to be 10 games over .500 at the end of April, then they only need to play .500 ball the rest of the way to have 92 wins.

You can't win the WS in April but you can put yourself behind the 8 ball.


Just to be picky, 10 games over is 86 wins at the end of the season...

Bobbo35
04-22-2005, 10:36 AM
Good post. It's surprising how wishy washy some Sox fans can be. The team starts off great and we're already discussing how to celebrate a WS. The team starts off slowly and the sky is falling.


There has been a lot of good with the team this year, namely hte starting pitching. But there have also been some holes that have been glossed over because of this hot start. Even I refrained from breaking them down and I'm pretty critical. I will wait a bit before I get to excited/disappointed. I want to see how this team handles adversity. Everyone gets along when you win.


Bob

Your exactly right! It is a marathon. Though it is a great way to start a season and I think it is great for the players, because it give them tons of confidence that carries through the season.
Go Sox!!!

Mickster
04-22-2005, 10:38 AM
Just to be picky, 10 games over is 86 wins at the end of the season...

:?: :?: :?:

Now I wasn't a math major in college but .500 ball at the end of the season would be 81-81. 10 games over would actually be 91-71. :wink:

MeanFish
04-22-2005, 10:51 AM
:?: :?: :?:

Now I wasn't a math major in college but .500 ball at the end of the season would be 81-81. 10 games over would actually be 91-71. :wink:

Kind of funny the way that works, isn't it?

During the season, .500 is viewed as having as many wins as you do losses. The amount of games over/under .500 is perceived as the difference between the wins and losses, which makes sense because every time you win a game you gain a game over .500 and every time you lose a game you lose a game over .500.

However, at the end of the year, ten games over .500 is perceived as 91, or, the # of games you would have had to lose in order to be .500.

The difference is perception: during the season, it's not easily recognized that every win isn't a loss. 45-40 is viewed as 5 games over because, in the short term, five losses would make you .500.

I mean it sounds obvious, but for every game you win, that's one less game you can lose. In the final standings, people do view every win as a non-loss and hence, 91-71 suddenly becomes "ten games over" even though during the season it'd be viewed as 20 because that's how many games you'd have to lose to be .500 again.

so the question is, is it 91 wins or is it 86?

And in the end, does every win or loss above 81 count as double since it can't be matched with a corresponding win or loss but instead eliminates one from the possible outcomes list?

Ack, my brain hurts.

voodoochile
04-22-2005, 10:53 AM
:?: :?: :?:

Now I wasn't a math major in college but .500 ball at the end of the season would be 81-81. 10 games over would actually be 91-71. :wink:

Okay...

If a team is 10 games over .500, they are 30-20 which means they can lose the next 10 games and still be .500.

In your example, they are 20 games over .500 at the end of the season. for example the team could be 81-61 with 20 games to play and easily end up 91-71 or 81-81 or 101-61.

86-76 is 10 games over .500 as is 14-4. 24-4 of course would be WAY cooler. Games over .500 is not the same as games back in the standings which is where I think you are getting confused. In standings, 2 games are decided each day, so the difference changes faster than the relation to .500 does.

Mickster
04-22-2005, 10:59 AM
Okay...

If a team is 10 games over .500, they are 30-20 which means they can lose the next 10 games and still be .500.

In your example, they are 20 games over .500 at the end of the season. for example the team could be 81-61 with 20 games to play and easily end up 91-71 or 81-81 or 101-61.

86-76 is 10 games over .500 as is 14-4. 24-4 of course would be WAY cooler. Games over .500 is not the same as games back in the standings which is where I think you are getting confused. In standings, 2 games are decided each day, so the difference changes faster than the relation to .500 does.

Nope.

Let's thy this again.

If they are at .500 at the end of the season, their record is 81-81
1 game over .500 is 82-80
2 games over .500 is 83-79
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 games over .500 is 91-71

TommyJohn
04-22-2005, 10:59 AM
This post rules!

Live in the now people.

Right NOW the Sox are 2 games up in first. Love that for what it is...

and I agree...

GO SOX!!

You're right. After all, a very wise man once said

Why should you want to know?
Don't you mind about the future.
Don't you try to think ahead.
Save tomorrow for tomorrow.
Think about today instead. Ohhhhh, yeah....
(what't the buzz? Tell me what's a happenin'. What's the buzz? Tell me what's
a happenin'?)

voodoochile
04-22-2005, 11:02 AM
Nope.

Let's thy this again.

If they are at .500 at the end of the season, their record is 81-81
1 game over .500 is 82-80
2 games over .500 is 83-79
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 games over .500 is 91-71

We disagree... You cannot be an odd number of games over .500 if you play a full season.

the gooch
04-22-2005, 11:02 AM
Just be realistic. If the Sox can somehow manage to be 10 games over .500 at the end of April, then they only need to play .500 ball the rest of the way to have 92 wins.

You can't win the WS in April but you can put yourself behind the 8 ball.

92-70 would require a 23-1 record in april to reach if playing .500 ball for 5 months.
i dont think the sox can go 11 and -3 through the rest of april.
edit: well, not with big frank on the DL.

MeanFish
04-22-2005, 11:03 AM
Nope.

Let's thy this again.

If they are at .500 at the end of the season, their record is 81-81
1 game over .500 is 82-80
2 games over .500 is 83-79
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 games over .500 is 91-71

Okay, just got out of the shower and I get it! Sorry, Voodoo wins.

We've played 16 games, and have 146 left. Splitting those evenly into 73 wins and 73 losses, and with a current record of 12-4, we would finish...

85-77 if we won as many as we lost, starting today. Which is 4 games over .500 if you think in terms of how many games we'd have to lose to be .500 within the constraints of the end of the season i.e. only 162 games.

However, were the season end not a factor, we'd be eight over, just as we are now.

LVSoxFan
04-22-2005, 11:08 AM
Having been to eight games so far (two in Detroit! Woo hoo!) I can sense the feeling, IMO, of fans about this team.

And that is: guarded optimism. Everybody's stoked about the record start, but I get the sense that everybody's holding their breath because they know it's only April, they know it's a "marathon," and in true Chicago fashion, we're just waiting for something to go horribly wrong (injury, the Twins, etc.).

My attitude is: enjoy the baseball. Don't look for predictions from me until the All-Star break.

There is one thing I do notice though: a couple of games we had no business winning we still managed to pull out. The first was the last Contreras start against Minnesota at home (last Monday)--they should have killed us but we squeaked by.

The second was yesterday's game at Detroit, which I was at. Buehrle (sp?) certainly wasn't in peak form and we got down... yet miraculously still managed to rally and win. That seems new to me. Granted, Konerko's grounder to short took that nasty hop and sort of sparked the rally, but I'll take it.

One thing I will be looking at that somebody mentioned above: Oakland. Oakland has been a thorn in our side for years now, a guaranteed loss. If we can get out of there with the series, well... I might just start fantasizing.

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-22-2005, 12:45 PM
No offense, RHPH, but I think you just set a record for most consecutive
cliches in one post.

From now on, I'll just read.

TommyJohn
04-22-2005, 12:47 PM
From now on, I'll just read.

Hey I wasn't sayin', I wuz just sayin'.

Baby Fisk
04-22-2005, 12:48 PM
From now on, I'll just read.

:tealpolice:
"Must not be your lucky day, son. Licence and registration, please."

gosox41
04-22-2005, 01:19 PM
Nope.

Let's thy this again.

If they are at .500 at the end of the season, their record is 81-81
1 game over .500 is 82-80
2 games over .500 is 83-79
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 games over .500 is 91-71


I also disgree. if 71-71 is .500 And the Sox win 20 games in a row they are 20 games over .500 (91-71.)



Bob

Lip Man 1
04-22-2005, 01:54 PM
I'm enjoying the start and hoping for the best for the rest of the season.

162 is a very long season, much can and does happen during it.

We'll see.

Lip

Fake Chet Lemon
04-22-2005, 01:59 PM
I am so tired of the posters here who want to say "Yea but in prior years we: started fast, we etc....." You can't compare this team to those teams! Everything is different, the manager, philosophy, THE MANAGER. So stop it :D: .

voodoochile
04-22-2005, 02:06 PM
I am so tired of the posters here who want to say "Yea but in prior years we: started fast, we etc....." You can't compare this team to those teams! Everything is different, the manager, philosophy, THE MANAGER. So stop it :D: .

It's never a good idea to base predictions of future failures on the fact that other ventures that started successfully failed and vice versa.

Otherwise, ther would be a LOT of Curt Schillings out there...

fquaye149
04-22-2005, 02:31 PM
We disagree... You cannot be an odd number of games over .500 if you play a full season.

Think of it as a standings. .500 is the only other team in your division. .500 will finish the season 81-81. If you finish 70-92 how many games back of .500 are you?

voodoochile
04-22-2005, 02:35 PM
Think of it as a standings. .500 is the only other team in your division. .500 will finish the season 81-81. If you finish 70-92 how many games back of .500 are you?

Edit, sorry, I misread your post. You will be 11 games behind .500 (the team), but 22 games UNDER .500 (the percentage). Again, that is because on any given days 2 games are played and you can make up or lose that many games relative to the other team's record. These are NOT the same concept.

Here's a different way of looking at it...

If you are even on money, you have $0.00 (you don't owe anyone anything and you don't have anything).

If you suddenly find a $20 bill lying in the street how much over even are you?

If you say $10, then you need to take some basic econ classes... heck, some basic math classes...:tongue:

Maximo
04-22-2005, 02:39 PM
22

Here's a different way of looking at it...

If you are even on money, you have $0.00 (you don't owe anyone anything and you don't have anything).

If you suddenly find a $20 bill lying in the street how much over even are you?

If you say $10, then you need to take some basic econ classes... heck, some basic math classes...:tongue:

"If today's high temperature was zero and tomorrow it's supposed to be twice as cold........how cold will it be tomorrow?":D:

Sad
04-22-2005, 02:47 PM
"If today's high temperature was zero and tomorrow it's supposed to be twice as cold........how cold will it be tomorrow?":D:

Hmmmmmmmm... knew I should've learned how to use a slide-rule :redneck

fquaye149
04-22-2005, 07:06 PM
Edit, sorry, I misread your post. You will be 11 games behind .500 (the team), but 22 games UNDER .500 (the percentage). Again, that is because on any given days 2 games are played and you can make up or lose that many games relative to the other team's record. These are NOT the same concept.

Here's a different way of looking at it...

If you are even on money, you have $0.00 (you don't owe anyone anything and you don't have anything).

If you suddenly find a $20 bill lying in the street how much over even are you?

If you say $10, then you need to take some basic econ classes... heck, some basic math classes...:tongue:

the problem is in a won-loss record you either win or lose. You cannot neither, if that makes sense. That is, if you take away a number in the win column it atuomatically becomes a tally in the loss column. The problem with the money analogy is that if you DON'T find a twenty dollar bill, you aren't charged twenty dollars.

I'm not claiming I'm right...I'm still trying to reason this out...but I think we need to find a more applicable analogy to reason this out.

It's only semantics anyway, not the end of the world. you say potato, I say po-tah-to. (I don't really say po-tah-to.)

voodoochile
04-22-2005, 08:13 PM
the problem is in a won-loss record you either win or lose. You cannot neither, if that makes sense. That is, if you take away a number in the win column it atuomatically becomes a tally in the loss column. The problem with the money analogy is that if you DON'T find a twenty dollar bill, you aren't charged twenty dollars.

I'm not claiming I'm right...I'm still trying to reason this out...but I think we need to find a more applicable analogy to reason this out.

It's only semantics anyway, not the end of the world. you say potato, I say po-tah-to. (I don't really say po-tah-to.)

Right, but you can ONLY do one at a time - win or lose. If my team is 81-61 with 20 games to play, they can lose all 20 games and still be at .500. Thus at present, they are 20 games over .500.

If the opponent is 61-81 and wins their last 20 games they too are at .500. Thus the opponent is 20 games under .500. The fact that the teams are also 20 games apart when it starts and tied when it's over only proves my point even more so.

Change the money analogy. You bet $20 on a football game taking a 3.5 point spread, you either win $20 or lose $20. It is never $10...

fquaye149
04-22-2005, 08:18 PM
Right, but you can ONLY do one at a time - win or lose. If my team is 81-61 with 20 games to play, they can lose all 20 games and still be at .500. Thus at present, they are 20 games over .500.

If the opponent is 61-81 and wins their last 20 games they too are at .500. Thus the opponent is 20 games under .500. The fact that the teams are also 20 games apart when it starts and tied when it's over only proves my point even more so.

Change the money analogy. You bet $20 on a football game taking a 3.5 point spread, you either win $20 or lose $20. It is never $10...

ah - well put. I am officially on the VC side here.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-22-2005, 08:38 PM
The money analogy doesn't apply at all. A better one would be fractions, ratios, and percentages. They're all different methods for expressing the exact same thing.

"Games over .500" = Total wins - total losses.

"Games to reach .500" = (0.5 * total games played) - actual wins.

It's bogus to suggest an 84-78 record is only "3 games over .500." That's confusing the two methods of measure above, thus making both meaningless.

The fact is we interchange the terms "games over .500" and "games to reach .500" all the time without even thinking about it, depending on which one expresses the subject most clearly. In this regard it is no different than fractions, ratios, and percentages. Each method serves a unique purpose better than the others.

Now let me tell you about kinetic energy and bicycle frame rigidity... back in the day when I spent the summer working in a bike shop...
:wink:

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-22-2005, 10:14 PM
Hey I wasn't sayin', I wuz just sayin'.

No worries. I appreciate good criticism as well as anyone. If nothing else, it's honest talk. That's why I love this site.
:bandance:

TheBull19
04-22-2005, 10:26 PM
Just be realistic. If the Sox can somehow manage to be 10 games over .500 at the end of April, then they only need to play .500 ball the rest of the way to have 92 wins.



How does ten games over .500 magically transform into 22 games over .500? Just curious

PaleHoseGeorge
04-22-2005, 10:48 PM
How does ten games over .500 magically transform into 22 games over .500? Just curious

It doesn't.

There are 24 games in April for the Sox. Ten games over at the end of the month translates to a 17-7 record. (The Sox are presently 12-4.)

With 138 games left to play May-October, a .500 record (69-69) would leave the Sox with a total of 86 wins (69 +17 = 86), not 92.

This is what happens when people begin confusing "games over" with "games to reach."

:cool:

bals28mjk
04-22-2005, 11:01 PM
Nope.

Let's thy this again.

If they are at .500 at the end of the season, their record is 81-81
1 game over .500 is 82-80
2 games over .500 is 83-79
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 games over .500 is 91-71

If you are 1-0 doesn't that make you a game over .500 or lets say 2-1 doesnt that make you one game over .500. Are you saying that makes you a half game over .500?