Jump to content

2023 Rangers/Astros thread of hate


ztejas

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

The sneks were six games over .500 but it doesn't matter, we're gonna get the Phillies.

 

Damn, I missed that this happened. "Fat Menudo Bowl" is just priceless BTW. He is such a colossal prick. It would be one thing if his game backed it up but he's fucking terrible.

I'm talking about some chickenhawk Astros fan that was walking out of the game the other night that is as described.  But it fits Maldonado too.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if they're 40-20 and that's 10 games above .500 and they lose the next 10 games, why aren't they then at .500?

3 minutes ago, Pimphand said:

David Dunning & Justin Kruger should definitely reach out to include you in their study.  You exceed even the APEX on the left side of this graph.

Cognitive Biases — Dunning–Kruger effect | by Michael Gearon | Medium

Music Video 90S GIF

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though, in themoreyouknow.star.gif , games above .500 and games ahead / behind team in the standings sound the same, look different.  You might be mixing those up. 
 

games behind, you gotta win and they gotta lose.  That’s why you end up dividing in half in your head.  20-19 team is 3.5 games behind a 23-15 team. 
 

with games over .500, there is no other team.  It’s just how many games more to get to .500

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pimphand said:

That's not how games above .500 are calculated....

Wins-Games Played/2 as YGIFS said

I've never seen it done like that and I've been watching sports a long, long time. Seems this method is only helpful when you look at final standings, which is why I think it's simply not done that way. However, y'all made me look and it appears there's a long-running internet debate on the matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What hell is this math discussion?

Here's the numbers to know: Rangers won convincingly. Twice. When it mattered.

Back to the point:

If you thought page 13 was fun as a Rangers fan, go reacquaint yourself with pages 25 and 26.

Some good shit in there, pay particular attention to the Adolis vitriol. It felt prescient...like they just knew what was coming...and were praying it wouldn't happen.

adolis.gif.0f7652514c250187370dc5103b25eef9.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I've never seen it done like that and I've been watching sports a long, long time. Seems this method is only helpful when you look at final standings, which is why I think it's simply not done that way. However, y'all made me look and it appears there's a long-running internet debate on the matter.

 

Rule #1 - Don't listen to a Reddit user who can't keep their/they're/there straight.

The delta and divide by two methodology is only relevant for calculating Games Back.

Games over .500 is simply how many more wins than losses.  I don't care if it's mid-season or post-season - how many more wins than losses do you have?  That's how many games over .500 you are.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GB and winning percentage are usually 100% correlated but not always.  Hideki Matsui and the New York Yankees played 163 games despite only playing 162 games.  The Red Sox were 6 games behind them despite playing one less game while playing the same number of games.  Baseball is madness.  

But in the end, I just want to congratulate the Fort Worth Rangers on their excellent win in Irving-Arlington over the 45-Astros of Houston.  I know my baseball and may the Rangers throw good baseballs at the opposing batters and have their gloves catch as many balls as...well, you know who...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2023 at 7:31 PM, SimkinsMan said:

I'm sure we can scrounge up a nice participation trophy for you guys. You tried really hard. That's what counts. (snicker)

Oh, look!  We got our "participation" trophy.

GettyImages-1753416597-e1698156124629.jp

 

On 10/20/2023 at 8:00 PM, HOOKEM4 said:

I expected that reaction. There is 0% chance they threw at him on purpose. Chin music, yes, 2 runs down with a runner on first? Get the fuck out of here. Thanks for that outburst though. Don't poke the bear jackoffs.

I think Adolis proved who the bear was the last two nights.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ almighty. 

"Games back" is used to compare team's records against each other. 

"Games above. 500" is used to refer to one team's record. 

A "game" in "games back" is made up of 2 results because it is referring to each team playing a game - you need to either win 2 games or win and have the other team lose. 

A "game" in "games above .500" is made up of just one result. If you're 30-30 then to get to 5 games above .500 you need to win 5 games. If you're 35-30 then to get back to .500 you need to lose 5 games. 

I see that @BehoId, The Underminer!basically already explained this.

The fact that the dumbest motherfucker on this site thinks it works like "games back" should have clued y'all in.

Edited by ztejas
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would take a shot at cellar-dwellers figuring out 'rithmetic; but if they finish at the top, that solves the math issue nice and tidy also.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ almighty. 
"Games back" is used to compare team's records against each other. 
"Games above. 500" is used to refer to one team's record. 
A "game" in "games back" is made up of 2 results because it is referring to each team playing a game - you need to either win 2 games or win and have the other team lose. 
A "game" in "games above .500" is made up of just one result. If you're 30-30 then to get to 5 games above .500 you need to win 5 games. If you're 35-30 then to get back to .500 you need to lose 5 games. 
I see that [mention=5281]BehoId, The Underminer![/mention]basically already explained this.
The fact that the dumbest motherfucker on this site thinks it works like "games back" should have clued y'all in.

What a stupid discussion. Fuck the astros



Weirdly I’ve always read you two as the same person and it never clicked you are two different people until I saw you post back to back.

Back to shitting on Astros.
  • Haha 2
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.



×
×
  • Create New...