Jump to content

The Jets are flying in under the radar.


joewilly12
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...