Game Blog: Rockets @ Spurs - Jan. 29

[LakerHater]

I turn 16 on April 1st.

That explains the math.

[gospursgojas]

Which is a re ed statement since the Spurs were 39 - 7 which makes them 32 games over .500!

Invest in some glasses.

Both you and the writer are wrong. Spurs at the time were 16 games over .500.

Know what you are talking before you start calling people a bc if you got it wrong also, what does that make you?

[ElNono]

The correct math would be:

39 + 7 = 46 games
46 games at .500 = 23 wins, 23 losses
39 wins - 23 wins = 16 games

[Mel_13]

[E-RockWill]

........

gui ude27 is hilarious....

Slow down, grasshoppa ...

[E-RockWill]

The correct math would be:

39 + 7 = 46 games
46 games at .500 = 23 wins, 23 losses
39 wins - 23 wins = 16 games

Winner, winner, chicken dinner....

Well done. to the voice of reason....

[gospursgojas]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner....

Well done. to the voice of reason....

I said 16 games was the correct answer like 2 post before. I can never win.

[Dex]

The correct math would be:

39 + 7 = 46 games
46 games at .500 = 23 wins, 23 losses
39 wins - 23 wins = 16 games

So if a team was 24-23, they would be half-a-game above .500 by your system?

I always assumed if a team was 20-20, they are a .500 team. If they are 21-20, they are a game above .500. 22-20, two games above .500, etc.

Maybe I've just been doing my math wrong this whole time, but I've never heard of a team being 'half-games' above/below .500, either.

Spurs are now 40-7. If they lost the next 33 straight games, they would be a .500 team (40-40). Thus, they are currently 33-games above .500, no?

[gospursgojas]

So if a team was 24-23, they would be half-a-game above .500 by your system?

I always assumed if a team was 20-20, they are a .500 team. If they are 21-20, they are a game above .500. 22-20, two games above .500, etc.

Maybe I've just been doing my math wrong this whole time, but I've never heard of a team being 'half-games' above/below .500, either.

Spurs are now 40-7. If they lost the next 33 straight games, they would be a .500 team (40-40). Thus, they are currently 33-games above .500, no?

That simply calculates how many more wins than losses. In your 22-20 example that team would actually be only 1 game above 500. You have to take into consideration the total number of games played.
22-20 means they have played 42 games. A 500 record of 42 games would be 21 wins. They have 22 so therefore 1 game over 500.

You are correct though about the .5 games over. You never hear that but you can still be .5 games above .500, just as you can be .5 games ahead of a team in the standings. If a team X is 21-20 and team Z is 20-20 (as in your examples). Team X would only be a .5 game ahead of teamZ bc team X has played 41 games to team Z's 40.

[E-RockWill]

Both you and the writer are wrong. Spurs at the time were 16 games over .500.

Know what you are talking before you start calling people a bc if you got it wrong also, what does that make you?

The real chicken dinner...so recognized...

That simply calculates how many more wins than losses. In your 22-20 example that team would actually be only 1 game above 500. You have to take into consideration the total number of games played.
22-20 means they have played 42 games. A 500 record of 42 games would be 21 wins. They have 22 so therefore 1 game over 500.

You are correct though about the .5 games over. You never hear that but you can still be .5 games above .500, just as you can be .5 games ahead of a team in the standings. If a team X is 21-20 and team Z is 20-20 (as in your examples). Team X would only be a .5 game ahead of teamZ bc team X has played 41 games to team Z's 40.

Math is a funny thing, eh?!