Talk:Games behind

I am a first time user so please excuse any improper posting process.

I just have a question about a term related to this topic and hope that by clarifying this point the article on "Games Behind" can be enhanced.

The term in questions in "games under .500".

If a team has 15 wins and 15 losses they have played 30 games and have a .500 winning percentage and are even If a team has 10 wins and 20 losses they have played 30 games and have a .333 winning percentage and are considered to be 10 games under .500 by most language used in sports.

My question is why is the team with 10 wins and 20 losses not 5 games under .500 instead of 10 games under .500?

If they had won only 5 more games they would have 15 wins and 15 losses and be .500.

Similarly if a team has 20 wins and 10 losses they have played 30 games and have a .666 winning percentage and are considered to be 10 games over .500 by most language used in sports.

Why are thy not considered to be 5 games over .500. If they had lost 5 more games they would have 15 wins and 15 losses and be .500.

I hope I am in the right place to be suggesting a discussion that could enhance the information contained in this site.

Thanks Hawktail5177 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The two figures -- games above/below .500 and games behind tell you two slightly different things.

"Games above (below) .500" evolved from quick-and-dirty observation. You're 50-58, so 50 minus 58 is negative 8, and you're 8 "games below .500." It's true enough that you need 8 consecutive wins to get back to .500 most efficiently. (This statistic is always an integer, and as most people don't like fractions, it has resisted attempts to halve it.)

But we're really talking half-games here: had you managed to win four of those losses, you'd be 54-54 and exactly at .500. The "games behind statistic counts these as half-games. A 61-51 team is +10, and a 59-53 team is +6. The difference is 4 half-games, so the games behind will show the 59-53 team as 2 games behind the 61-51 team. You get +1/2 for each extra win and -1/2 for each extra loss. Variant numbers of games played create the fractional games behind. A 97-64 team is 1/2 game behind a 98-64 team. They have, in effect, one extra game in which to make up the difference. WHPratt (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I recently added a part to the article, which I find very intriguing. If a team is 26-15 and another is 25-13, through the calculation, the team with a 25-13 record is technically one-half game AHEAD despite having fewer wins, because when you calculate it as if the team with 26 wins is ahead, you get a negative number. Someone verify if this is correct.

The formula was wrongly listed as "((W1 - W2) + (L1 - L2))/2". This ALWAYS equals zero when the two teams have played the same number of games... Instead, it should be "((W1 - W2) - (L1 - L2))/2", which is the correct formula. --SFoskett 03:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the original formula was the same (up to arithmetic) as the one you say is correct. (note that the formula on the page uses a different order of terms than the ones you give here). Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The term absolute difference seems to imply that an absolute value is taken, which is incorrect. A better way to describe the computation is to say that if Team 2 trails Team 1, the games behind for the trailing team is computed as the average of the number of "wins behind" (W1-W2) and the number of "losses ahead" (L2-L1). We might also say that ties do not enter into the calculation, although this may not ever be applicable. For example, while ties can occur in the NFL, but I don't know whether GB is ever used in standings for that sport. 64.5.76.6 09:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Formula involving Ties

Who came up with that formula? When wins are worth 2 points and ties are worth 1, I was under the impression that ties were not even included in the formula, since a tie would be considered half a win and half a loss and would not change the number of games that team was above or below .500. For instance, using the NFL as an example since ties are possible and a team's relation to first place is usually stated in games behind and not points behind. If the Philadelphia Eagles are 2 games behind the New York Giants and happen to tie their game on Sunday (while the Giants have a bye week), they will remain 2 games behind the Giants, while using the formula pasted on the page, the Eagles would fall a further one quarter game back. I have never heard of such a thing. Whoever posted that formula should explain themselves.Juve2000 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)