PDA

View Full Version : Math Tribune style


gosox41
05-06-2005, 08:43 AM
Not a big deal but today's Trib had an article about how the Sox are likely to make the playoffs after their fast start. I don't have a link and don't have the article in front of me right now.

But the article said the Twins won the division last year with 92 wins. In order for the Sox to do that this year they would need to go 69-65 the rest of the way.

Not really unless the power of math changed overnight. The Sox are 21-7 right now. 92-21 equals 71 last I checked. Like I said no big deal, but it does make the writer look pretty ignorant.


Bob

FedEx227
05-06-2005, 08:47 AM
damn, I was said when i read that "Sweet .500 ball gets us 92 wins!"...but now you've ruined that.

SoxWillWin
05-06-2005, 08:51 AM
damn, I was said when i read that "Sweet .500 ball gets us 92 wins!"...but now you've ruined that.

We'll be alright after we take care of the Blue Birds, and the Guppies.

Rocklive99
05-06-2005, 09:55 AM
We'll be alright after we take care of the Blue Birds, and the Guppies.

I'm a lil worried about these teams, when riding high, they can be a killer, especially when taking them lightly. I'm a lil excited about Buerhle-Chacin though

FoulkeFan
05-06-2005, 10:31 AM
.500 ball will get the Sox 88 wins. (162 - 28 games played so far = 134. 134/2 = 67. 21+67 = 88 wins)

That's all the math I have for you today.

pudge
05-06-2005, 12:15 PM
.500 ball will get the Sox 88 wins. (162 - 28 games played so far = 134. 134/2 = 67. 21+67 = 88 wins)

That's all the math I have for you today.

If we play .525 the rest of the way, we get 91 wns.

seanpmurphy
05-06-2005, 12:52 PM
I'm a lil worried about these teams, when riding high, they can be a killer, especially when taking them lightly. I'm a lil excited about Buerhle-Chacin though

Toronto is looking good this year. Hopefully our pitching can shut down Hillenbrand who's hitting close to .375 on the season. Paulie, take notes when he's at the plate.

The Devil Rays stomped the Yankees, but this was a Yankee team with laughable pitching.

The Sox will be fine as long as they don't just assume they're going to win. Ugh.

doublem23
05-06-2005, 01:07 PM
Why won't no one point out the fact we're on pace to win 122 games? :tongue:

Tekijawa
05-06-2005, 01:19 PM
Why won't no one point out the fact we're on pace to win 122 games? :tongue:

Why won't anyone point out that the YANKEES are on pace to win 61?

Iguana775
05-06-2005, 01:27 PM
Why won't anyone point out that the YANKEES are on pace to win 61?

How great is that??!!

:dtroll: :supernana:

schmitty9800
05-06-2005, 01:45 PM
Why won't anyone point out that the YANKEES are on pace to win 61?I'm glad that you did because that's very satisfying. :)

DrCrawdad
05-06-2005, 01:48 PM
For 92 wins...

The Sox would need to go 71-63 the rest of the way. That's 8 games over .500 and a .530 winning percentage from here on out.

SOXSINCE'70
05-06-2005, 01:59 PM
I don't see the Sox winning 122 games.This is an unrealistic goal,
and most Sox fans know it.They cannot play .740 ball the rest of the
season (although it would be great if they could).What scares me
is how the Sox fare against the A.L. Waste (I mean West).
They suck in California and have had trouble winning at Safeco
Field.The next 44-47 games will begin to define what kind of a team
the 2005 White Sox are.The pitching and defense have won at least
80 to 90 % of their games.The bats of Dye,Konerko,et al must break out
eventually.Pitchers goes into slumps,just as hitters do.

That said,i'd be happy with 95 to 96 wins as long as the Twinkies,
Tiggers,'Toons and Royals finish with 1 fewer victory than the Sox.

fquaye149
05-06-2005, 02:13 PM
I don't see the Sox winning 122 games.This is an unrealistic goal,
and most Sox fans know it.They cannot play .740 ball the rest of the
season (although it would be great if they could).What scares me
is how the Sox fare against the A.L. Waste (I mean West).
They suck in California and have had trouble winning at Safeco
Field.The next 44-47 games will begin to define what kind of a team
the 2005 White Sox are.The pitching and defense have won at least
80 to 90 % of their games.The bats of Dye,Konerko,et al must break out
eventually.Pitchers goes into slumps,just as hitters do.

That said,i'd be happy with 95 to 96 wins as long as the Twinkies,
Tiggers,'Toons and Royals finish with 1 fewer victory than the Sox.

So wait, you're saying you don't think the Sox will win 122 games?

Ol' No. 2
05-06-2005, 02:17 PM
Bah! Let's win tonight. We'll take care of the rest of the games one at a time.

Hitmen77
05-07-2005, 09:53 AM
The only thing that matters is how many more games we win than any other team in the AL Central (or possibly a wild card oppponent). All this recent math about the Sox playing .500 the rest of the way to win X number of games doesn't mean anything to me. Right now, the Sox are 4.5 games ahead of the Twins. If we play .500 the rest of the way and the Twins play 5 games over .500 the rest of the way - we LOSE! A 4.5 game lead is NOT an insurmountable lead. If we only play .500 the rest of the way, I don't expect us to hold a lead in the standings over the Twins (or for the wild card).

PaleHoseGeorge
05-07-2005, 10:18 AM
The only thing that matters is how many more games we win than any other team in the AL Central (or possibly a wild card oppponent). All this recent math about the Sox playing .500 the rest of the way to win X number of games doesn't mean anything to me. Right now, the Sox are 4.5 games ahead of the Twins. If we play .500 the rest of the way and the Twins play 5 games over .500 the rest of the way - we LOSE! A 4.5 game lead is NOT an insurmountable lead. If we only play .500 the rest of the way, I don't expect us to hold a lead in the standings over the Twins (or for the wild card).

No. The Twins must play and win the extra game to beat the Sox. Thus they need six more victories, not five, which perfectly illustrates why talking about this stuff in May is so stupid.

I'll hasten to add that the Sox and Twins have played 29 and 28 games respectively and that's less than 20 percent of the entire MLB season. Lots of baseball left to be played.

In fact if this were the NFL, the season would have ended 2-1/2 months ago, the playoffs would be over, the Super Bowl champion crowned, and a bunch of idiotic talking heads would be on TV this very moment discussing endlessly the NFL college draft. That's make-believe excitement created for stupid fans who can't tell the difference between REAL championship teams and phoney-baloney ones.

SOXSINCE'70
05-07-2005, 10:27 AM
So wait, you're saying you don't think the Sox will win 122 games?

No,I don't.Too many things can go wrong in a season.

batmanZoSo
05-07-2005, 11:42 AM
I don't want .500 ball the rest of the way and to sleepwalk into the playoffs. What if the Twins decide to win 95 games? I say we keep with what we're doing and win 101 games.

Hitmen77
05-07-2005, 12:11 PM
No. The Twins must play and win the extra game to beat the Sox. Thus they need six more victories, not five, which perfectly illustrates why talking about this stuff in May is so stupid.
I'll hasten to add that the Sox and Twins have played 29 and 28 games respectively and that's less than 20 percent of the entire MLB season. Lots of baseball left to be played.

My mistake - but even so, if we played .500 the rest of the way, I wouldn't count on us being able to hold a 4 or 5 game lead. I agree that all this talk in early May is stupid.

bigfoot
05-07-2005, 09:24 PM
Why won't anyone point out that the YANKEES are on pace to win 61?

Because 61 is WAY too many wins for the Yankees to win, in any season!~:bandance:

TheBull19
05-07-2005, 11:21 PM
I don't see the Sox winning 122 games.This is an unrealistic goal ....They cannot play .740 ball the rest of the
season.

:dtroll:
^
^
^
^
^
^
teal

Tragg
05-08-2005, 12:23 AM
I like the Moronotti logic about our chances; he said we have beaten only 1 team with a winning record.
And he's right again - after the Sox pound Toronto, they no longer have a winning record.

Wsoxmike59
05-08-2005, 07:47 AM
Doesn't the Moron realize we are playing the same teams the Twins are???? :angry:

If the Chicago Sun-Times were a pair of underwear, Jay Mariotti would be the racing stripe!

PaleHoseGeorge
05-08-2005, 08:40 AM
I like the Moronotti logic about our chances; he said we have beaten only 1 team with a winning record.
And he's right again - after the Sox pound Toronto, they no longer have a winning record.

Yep. We're ****ing up everybody's season. I'm liking it.
:cool:

:iron
"Watch me put Perry in the backfield against Walsh and those 49er *******s."

The Critic
05-08-2005, 09:35 AM
I like the Moronotti logic about our chances; he said we have beaten only 1 team with a winning record.
And he's right again - after the Sox pound Toronto, they no longer have a winning record.
That's the thing that made me a little crazy about his "logic" - it's early May, and the Sox were directly responsible for most of those teams' losing records!!!
They beat these teams then some dolt harps on the fact that their opponents are losers....that's precious....:mad:

voodoochile
05-08-2005, 09:58 AM
That's the thing that made me a little crazy about his "logic" - it's early May, and the Sox were directly responsible for most of those teams' losing records!!!
They beat these teams then some dolt harps on the fact that their opponents are losers....that's precious....:mad:

At last check, the Sox opponents were 7-23 against the Sox this season. That's 16 games under .500. Now collectively that group is 24 games under .500. So the Sox are the reason those 6 opponents aren't collectively almost .500. Removing KC from the equation makes the Sox 17-7 and the remaining 5 opponents are 8 games under .500, so without the Sox that group of teams is 2 games over .500 collectively.

The Sox are the SOLE reason the Tigers are under .500. The Sox are also the reason the Twins don't have one of the best records in baseball.

Besides isn't the purpose of having an unbalanced schedule in the first place so each team plays the other teams that matter most the most amount of times? It seems a bit odd to set it up that way and then complain that the Sox are beating the teams they are supposed to beating like a drum.

Edit: Whoops, I left out Toronto in my analysis. That means the opponts with KC are actually 23 games under .500 and without the Sox are averaging 1 game under .500 as a group (KC brings the average down 2.25 games all by their lonesome).

DumpJerry
05-08-2005, 10:49 AM
Ummm gang, by my math, the Sox will finish 155-7.

guillen4life13
05-08-2005, 12:00 PM
Ummm gang, by my math, the Sox will finish 155-7.

Your math sucks.

DumpJerry
05-08-2005, 12:04 PM
Your math sucks.
How so? It adds up to 162. Until and unless they lose number 8, it reamins a reality!