8/23 Non-Brewer IGT (sCrUBs at 2:35p)

[dlk9s]

Back within a fraction.

More importantly, within one game in the loss column.

Keep in mind that St. Louis is tied with us in the loss column.

[TooLiveBrew]

I've never really understood why more importance is place on the loss column than win column. We're 4 games up on StL in the win column - why is that less relevant? I understand there's a difference in total number of games played, but our winning % in our 127 games is higher than StL's in 123 games. Sure, the Cards could go out & win all 4 of those games they've 'yet to play', but they could just as easily lose them. If you 'equalize' things, the Brewers have already 'won' those extra 4 games, right?

[Brian the Automator]

I've never really understood why more importance is place on the loss column than win column.

Losses are weighted heavier because they should happen less frequently to the good teams.

 

[dlk9s]

Losses are more important than wins because you can't "make up" or "catch up" in losses.

[TooLiveBrew]

Ok, but where my confusion comes in (here... to be fair, my confusion comes in a ton from every direction, nearly always), is just in what I mentioned about the Brewers having already 'won' the 4 games the Cards have yet to play. Doesn't that account for those four games, hypothetically? Just as you can't "make up" or "catch" losses, can't you also not "make up" wins (but merely play catch-up)? Perhaps what I'm missing here is only related to game differential - I'm not sure. While the Cards can theoretically win the 4 'extra' games, isn't (esp. with a roughly .500 winning %) it likely that they won't?

[Fatter than Joey]

I think you are trying to read way to much into it.

 

Basically if you look two team's losses -- you know what their "best case scenario" is, i.e., you know what will happen if they win all of their remaining games.

 

So basically if the Cardinals win all their remaining games, and the Brewers do as well, the best the Cards could do is one game behind the Brewers.

 

This is just a little quick and dirty measure. There is certainly nothing scientific about it. It is really a bar-room stat.

 

I suspect though -- the Cards are closer to us than GB indicates because they have played 3 less games than us.

[chuckywang]

Ok, but where my confusion comes in (here... to be fair, my confusion comes in a ton from every direction, nearly always), is just in what I mentioned about the Brewers having already 'won' the 4 games the Cards have yet to play. Doesn't that account for those four games, hypothetically? Just as you can't "make up" or "catch" losses, can't you also not "make up" wins (but merely play catch-up)? Perhaps what I'm missing here is only related to game differential - I'm not sure. While the Cards can theoretically win the 4 'extra' games, isn't (esp. with a roughly .500 winning %) it likely that they won't?

 

It's more important because you usually gauge a team in the middle of a season (when different teams have played a different number of games) by what they can hope for if they "win out". Since "winning out" means that your loss column does not change, the current number of losses you have right now is equal to the current number of losses you'll have at the end of the season.

 

Now, if "losing out" is the gauge that people use, we would be having the exact same discussion about the win column, but since wins occur more frequently than losses for playoff contending teams, we prefer to think of things in terms of "winning out."

[TooLiveBrew]

Ok, thanks guys - looks like FTJ is right; I'm reading way too much into it! Good!

[Ennder]

The number of losses has no more importance than number of wins and anyone that tells you otherwise is being silly. You can't just assume a team will win out or lose out, the safest bet is to assume they go .500 out over a small sample of games. If you are 1 game out of 1st you are 1 game out 1st and wins or losses matters not at all.