Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Rex Ryan is 34-30 in his career, how many games over .500 is he? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 In order to reach .500 the Cubs would need to win 21 games. This is how it is stated in sports forever. I know that's how it's been stated forever, but it's pretty dumb as should be expected from sport. The Cubs need to win 22 to finish .500 and winning 59 out of 140 games leaves them 11 wins short of a .500 record right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Gato-A team that is 7-8-how many games under .500 are they? (this should be good) Lololololololololololololol It was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stugotz81 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I see the points here, by sayn the Jets are 4 games under .500 when they are 6-10 is technically right.....but at the same time that would leave one to assume there is 20 games in a football season which there is not. So since the season caps at 16 games, for the Jets to finish 6-10 then they finished 2 games under .500.... bc it would have been possible for them to finish 8-8 and not possible for them to finish 10-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Lololololololololololololol It was good. As expected, a non-answer. You go ahead Gato, change the vernacular of how it is stated. You have a new mission in life. Ye that is so quick to criticize, yet is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I see the points here, by sayn the Jets are 4 games under .500 when they are 6-10 is technically right.....but at the same time that would leave one to assume there is 20 games in a football season which there is not. So since the season caps at 16 games, for the Jets to finish 6-10 then they finished 2 games under .500.... bc it would have been possible for them to finish 8-8 and not possible for them to finish 10-10 It is how it has been stated in sport forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Shall we also argue that a 6-10 team is not actually 4 games behind in standings of a 10-6 team, because if the 6-10 won 2 more games, and 10 -6 teams lost 2 more games, they would actually be tied? You can't make this stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Shall we also argue that a 6-10 team is not actually 4 games behind in standings of a 10-6 team, because if the 6-10 won 2 more games, and 10 -6 teams lost 2 more games, they would actually be tied? You can't make this stuff up. You just did, and as usual fail to fathom how incredibly dumb what you just said is. Or maybe you get it but you think it's working for what you're going for...I don't even know what this point. Hell, you probably don't know at this point. My mouth is still open over how proud you are of the 7-8 question. This should be good? Lololoolololol. What were you hoping for? They're half a win away? Oh Scott.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stugotz81 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 It is how it has been stated in sport forever I see your point and I said technically what you are saying is correct by the standards of Math. But if YOU told someone who didn't know how many games in a football season that the Jets finished 6-10 which meant they finished 4 games under .500, then how many games would this person think there is in a NFL football season? 20! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 You just did, and as usual fail to fathom how incredibly dumb what you just said is. Or maybe you get it but you think it's working for what you're going for...I don't even know what this point. Hell, you probably don't know at this point. My mouth is still open over how proud you are of the 7-8 question. This should be good? Lololoolololol. What were you hoping for? They're half a win away? Oh Scott.... Answer the question smart guy-How many games under is a 7-8 team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I see your point and I said technically what you are saying is correct by the standards of Math. But if YOU told someone who didn't know how many games in a football season that the Jets finished 6-10 which meant they finished 4 games under .500, then how many games would this person think there is in a NFL football season? 20! The quotient has ALWAYS been stated as the number of games required to win (or lose if they are over .500) in order to reach the .500 mark (even). It has never changed. It has never been about (well, if they would have won x number of games more (LULZ), they would have been there). this is the way it is stated, has always been stated, regardless Gato's ignorant protestations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Answer the question smart guy-How many games under is a 7-8 team? Isnt it 1/2...If team A is 8-8 and team B is 7-8, team A would be ahead of team B by 1/2 a game. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So if the Jets won 2 more games (Gato's original point) and they ended 8-8, is that not .500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So if the Jets won 2 more games (Gato's original point) and they ended 8-8, is that not .500? But that is not the quotient of 6-10 being 2 games under .500. Fact-The 6-10 Jets finished 4 games under .500 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Isnt it 1/2...If team A is 8-8 and team B is 7-8, team A would be ahead of team B by 1/2 a game. No? The question was, how many games under .500 is a 7-8 team? Not how far behind they are of "x" team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 But that is not the quotient of 6-10 being 2 games under .500. Fact-The 6-10 Jets finished 4 games under .500 But if they won 2 more games, would they be .500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 The question was, how many games under .500 is a 7-8 team? Not how far behind they are of "x" team And the answer would still be 1/2. .500 is 8-8. In my example, "team A" was 8-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 But if they won 2 more games, would they be .500? Actual record soes not intersperse the words "if". Actual record is what you are. 6-10= 4 games under .500 If Doug Brien makes a kick, maybe the jets go to a SB. We all know that is not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 But that is not the quotient of 6-10 being 2 games under .500. Fact-The 6-10 Jets finished 4 games under .500 The Jets would have been 4 games behind a team finishing 10-6, and 2 games behind a team finishing 8-8. Therefore, the Jets finished 2 games below .500 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 And the answer would still be 1/2. .500 is 8-8. In my example, "team A" was 8-8. I never posed how far they would be behind 8-8 team. Yes, the 8-7 team (who would be one game under .500), would be behind an 8-8 by 1/2 game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Actual record soes not intersperse the words "if". Actual record is what you are. 6-10= 4 games under .500 If Doug Brien makes a kick, maybe the jets go to a SB. We all know that is not reality. Yeah but hypothetically, if the Jets won 2 more game last season, would they have been .500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stugotz81 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 The quotient has ALWAYS been stated as the number of games required to win (or lose if they are over .500) in order to reach the .500 mark (even). It has never changed. It has never been about (well, if they would have won x number of games more (LULZ), they would have been there). this is the way it is stated, has always been stated, regardless Gato's ignorant protestations. But how is that possible without having another 4 games to play to make them finish 10-10? If they won 2 more games... then they would have 2 less losses, no?....so they are 2 games under .500 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_behind The "games behind" number is sometimes made in reference to a standard "winning percentage", although in this particular context, the word "behind" is replaced by "under" or "below". In making this calculation, however, the division by two is not done. For example, a team with a record of 19 wins and 20 losses is considered as being "one game under .500", in contrast to being "one-half game behind" a team with a ".500" record of 20 wins and 20 losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Yeah but hypothetically, if the Jets won 2 more game last season, would they have been .500? Hypothetically, Rex could have had monkey's fly out his ass. It didn't happen. They finished 6-10. If they won 2 more yes, they would have been 8-8 >500. BUT, they finished 6-10, which is 4 games under. They lost 4 more games than they won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 But how is that possible without having another 4 games to play to make them finish 10-10? If they won 2 more games... then they would have 2 less losses, no?....so they are 2 games under .500 You guys keep tripping over the word "if" An actual record has no "ifs" in it. As Parcells said, you are what you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I never posed how far they would be behind 8-8 team. Yes, the 8-7 team (who would be one game under .500), would be behind an 8-8 by 1/2 game. False. The math is still the same, regardless if you are talking standings in relation to a team or a specific record. The Jets finished 4 games below 10-6 last year, and 2 games below 8-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stugotz81 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Actual record soes not intersperse the words "if". Actual record is what you are. 6-10= 4 games under .500 If Doug Brien makes a kick, maybe the jets go to a SB. We all know that is not reality. IF and only IF they had 20 games in a season....where and when are these potential other 4 games gonna be played for them to finish at .500????? You're not putting into fact that 2 more wins equals 2 less losses....I would love to hear you call Francesca with this question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastineau Lives Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 WINS under 500 - 2 Games under 500 - 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Hypothetically, Rex could have had monkey's fly out his ass. It didn't happen. They finished 6-10. If they won 2 more yes, they would have been 8-8 >500. BUT, they finished 6-10, which is 4 games under. They lost 4 more games than they won. Interesting. So the Jets were 2 wins away from being .500 but not 2 games under .500. This is some deep sh*t man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So if the Jets won 2 more games (Gato's original point) and they ended 8-8, is that not .500? Hypothetically, Rex could have had monkey's fly out his ass. It didn't happen. They finished 6-10. If they won 2 more yes, they would have been 8-8 >500. BUT, they finished 6-10, which is 4 games under. They lost 4 more games than they won. Rotfl. Just a reminder...8-8 = .500, Scott. Also, they need half a win to be .500 at 7-8. Stupid questions get stupid answers. Since that's not possible and the NFL season is 16 games anyway - they are 1 away from .500. I'm actually annoyed at how proud you must have been with yourself for that split second in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_behind The "games behind" number is sometimes made in reference to a standard "winning percentage", although in this particular context, the word "behind" is replaced by "under" or "below". In making this calculation, however, the division by two is not done. For example, a team with a record of 19 wins and 20 losses is considered as being "one game under .500", in contrast to being "one-half game behind" a team with a ".500" record of 20 wins and 20 losses. Ok so we finished 4 games under .500 and two games below 8-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 You guys keep tripping over the word "if" An actual record has no "ifs" in it. As Parcells said, you are what you are. Yep, and last year the Jets were 2 wins away from being a .500 football team despite historically bad play on offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Interesting. So the Jets were 2 wins away from being .500 but not 2 games under .500. This is some deep sh*t man. Jif-Show me anywhere where the formula is stated differently. Go ahead. Sorry to blow your mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Ok so we finished 4 games under .500 and two games below 8-8....which is actual .500 in an NFL season. Fixed since you're a nice guy and just wanted him to be quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Yep, and last year the Jets were 2 wins away from being a .500 football team despite historically bad play on offense. and finished 4 games under .500, even though you misstated. Don't worry about being wrong so much catboy, you do it often. buhbye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.