Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

  1. #1
    Worth The Wait
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,303

    Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Just a little something I've noticed on Redszone. Games back means MUCH less than simply the loss column. You can't make up losses, so that's all I ever look at in the standings.

    And in the loss column, we are THREE back of St. Louis and TIED w/ San Diego for the Wild Card. Just FYI.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Making sense of it all Matt700wlw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,506

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Quote Originally Posted by Edskin
    Just a little something I've noticed on Redszone. Games back means MUCH less than simply the loss column. You can't make up losses, so that's all I ever look at in the standings.

    And in the loss column, we are THREE back of St. Louis and TIED w/ San Diego for the Wild Card. Just FYI.
    Wouldn't that all pan out once each team plays 162?

  4. #3
    Worth The Wait
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,303

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Matt- NO. That's where people misunderstand.

    If we're 66-44 and the Cards are 64-44, we'd technically be in "first place." But assuming both teams won the remainder of their games, the Cards would actually tie us in the standings, forcing a playoff.

    San Diego right now has fewer wins than we do, but the same amount of losses. Therefore, we "lead" the wild card. But if both teams won out from here, they would tie us.

  5. #4
    Tired of talk. Win! Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Commonwealth
    Posts
    8,346

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt700wlw
    Wouldn't that all pan out once each team plays 162?
    Yes, but what this means is the Reds have played more games than the Cards and thus the Cards control their fate a little more than we do.

    Championships for MY teams in my lifetime:
    Cincinnati Reds - 75, 76, 90
    Chicago Blackhawks - 10, 13
    University of Kentucky - 78, 96, 98, 12
    Cincinnati Bengals - None
    Chicago Bulls - 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98

  6. #5
    Making sense of it all Matt700wlw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,506

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    If the Reds and Cards tied for first after 162, and all things remained the same through the next month, the Reds would have a better divisional record and head to head record than the Cards.

    That would mean the Reds win the Central, right?


    Technicalities are mind numbing.

  7. #6
    Member GullyFoyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    491

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Quote Originally Posted by Edskin
    If we're 66-44 and the Cards are 64-44, we'd technically be in "first place." But assuming both teams won the remainder of their games, the Cards would actually tie us in the standings, forcing a playoff.

    San Diego right now has fewer wins than we do, but the same amount of losses. Therefore, we "lead" the wild card. But if both teams won out from here, they would tie us.
    But the idea that these teams would win the rest of their games is silly...

    They are all about .500 teams...

    So the other day when the Reds where tied for first but one back in the lost column was perfectly accurate... because the odds are the Cards would when one and lose one...

    edit: Reds where 67-61, Cards where 66-60... based on their winning percentage they would be 67-61 after two more games...
    Last edited by GullyFoyle; 08-27-2006 at 05:16 PM.

  8. #7
    Worth The Wait
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,303

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    You guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

    I'm just saying the loss column is more important than games back.

  9. #8
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,660

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Quote Originally Posted by Edskin
    Matt- NO. That's where people misunderstand.

    If we're 66-44 and the Cards are 64-44, we'd technically be in "first place." But assuming both teams won the remainder of their games, the Cards would actually tie us in the standings, forcing a playoff.

    San Diego right now has fewer wins than we do, but the same amount of losses. Therefore, we "lead" the wild card. But if both teams won out from here, they would tie us.
    Might just be your choice of examples, Ed, but that would be a great spot for the REDS... better than the Cards. Sure the Cards can tie, but all the pressure is on them when the best you can do in a scenario is get a tie. The worse thing for the REDS would be a tie. I'd much rather be in the REDS position. Same goes for San Diego... all the pressure and the best is only a tie. And the way this year has gone I'd be hard-pressed to bet on any NL team not called the Mets to win 2 in a row or just win 1 game when forced.

    The important thing is for the REDS to just win. Win, win and win more... and control the only thing they can control.
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  10. #9
    Member GullyFoyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    491

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Quote Originally Posted by Edskin
    You guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

    I'm just saying the loss column is more important than games back.
    Didn't mean to nit pick, losing baseball makes me sour

    What a weekend.
    Last edited by GullyFoyle; 08-27-2006 at 06:58 PM.

  11. #10
    Member redsrule2500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    3,200

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    I've always thought this way as well, but I don't know if it's correct...
    redsrule2500
    Go Reds!
    Baseball Bliss
    ďIím a normal guy blessed with the ability to hit a baseball.Ē - Sean Casey

  12. #11
    15 game winner Danny Serafini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sultanes de Monterrey
    Posts
    4,183

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    The loss column is no more or less important than the win column or the games back column. Games back is an equal function of both columns. When you have two teams who have played a differing number of games what becomes important is which team has a game in hand, because they have a little more control over their fate. If you've got two teams and their records are 60-40 and 60-39, or their records are 60-40 and 59-40, it makes no difference that the half game lead comes from the win column or the loss column.

  13. #12
    Raaaaaaaandy guttle11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,118

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt700wlw
    If the Reds and Cards tied for first after 162, and all things remained the same through the next month, the Reds would have a better divisional record and head to head record than the Cards.

    That would mean the Reds win the Central, right?


    Technicalities are mind numbing.
    Only if both teams finish ahead of the other WC contenders. Otherwise, one game playoff.
    "I saw Wedding Crashers accidentally. I bought a ticket for Grizzly Man and went into the wrong theater. After an hour, I figured I was in the wrong theater, but I kept waiting. Thatís the thing about bear attacks. They come when you least expect it."-Dwight K. Schrute

  14. #13
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,569

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Quote Originally Posted by Edskin
    Just a little something I've noticed on Redszone. Games back means MUCH less than simply the loss column. You can't make up losses, so that's all I ever look at in the standings.

    And in the loss column, we are THREE back of St. Louis and TIED w/ San Diego for the Wild Card. Just FYI.
    I don't understand why baseball announcers have always pointed this out. What does it mean to make up a loss? It isn't that folks are complicating matters, its just that it really isn't important, unless of course its 1972 and MLB decides to let the division titles be decided with teams playing an unequal number of games, or worse yet, split a season like 1981 when unequal number of games have been played. As long as a 1/2 game lead is not allowed to stand due to an uneven number of games being played, it really is a moot point.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  15. #14
    Worth The Wait
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,303

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    Here's why the loss column matters more:

    It is possible to..........

    Be "tied" in the race......

    Win ALL of your remaining games..........

    and NOT finish first.........

    Fact.

  16. #15
    15 game winner Danny Serafini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sultanes de Monterrey
    Posts
    4,183

    Re: Gotta Look at the LOSS column---THREE back, TIED for WC

    You could flip it and say the win column is more important.

    It is possible to......

    Be "tied" in the race.....

    Lose ALL of your remaining games.....

    and finish first.....

    Fact.

    That's why neither column is more important than the other.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25