Anybody understand baseball?

[JoeBlow]

Being older now than I was before, I'm having trouble understanding the GB column when reading the standings.

Back in the day, when men were men and women were women, the first place team in each division had a "0" under the GB symbol, as in "it's impossible to be any games behind anybody if you're in first place". Hello.

I don't know. It must be the new math, but it just doesn't add up. On top of it all, they've gotten real cutsie and next to GB now they put a question mark (on MLB.com).It's like even THEY don't know what the hell they're talking about. Back when I was a kid there were only 16 teams.

Wait, I'm not that old.

Back when I was a kid there were GW-RBI's. Wait, those were stupid.

Back when I was a kid, there was no interleague play.

Back when I was a kid there was real astro turf.

Back when I was a kid, the players took perfromance enhancing drugs, but they didn't "know" about it.

Things were so tough back then that the even a commisioner died. And one time Kirk Gibson flipped off a fan.

Back when I was a kid the Dodger dogs barked.

The rockies drank Cooors on the field.

Ok, that one was stupid.

Whatever.

Does anybody know how a first place team can be a half a game out?

Back when I was a kid

 

[philamote]

I looked over the standings in question and every first-place team has a dash under the "Games Back" column:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/index.jsp?tcid=mm_mlb_standings#20110609

In other words, the leader in each division is therefore zero games back.

Can you clarify what's confusing you, or where you saw the GB numbers presented differently?

(And BTW, back then there were no PEDs, but there was a certain player/manager who placed bets on whether his own team would win or lose...which may have had something to do with said commissioner going defunct. One's heart can only sustain so much disappointment in a lifetime...)

 

[Johnny]

Being older now than I was before, I'm having trouble understanding the GB column when reading the standings.

Back in the day, when men were men and women were women, the first place team in each division had a "0" under the GB symbol, as in "it's impossible to be any games behind anybody if you're in first place". Hello.

I don't know. It must be the new math, but it just doesn't add up. On top of it all, they've gotten real cutsie and next to GB now they put a question mark (on MLB.com).It's like even THEY don't know what the hell they're talking about. Back when I was a kid there were only 16 teams.

Wait, I'm not that old.

Back when I was a kid there were GW-RBI's. Wait, those were stupid.

Back when I was a kid, there was no interleague play.

Back when I was a kid there was real astro turf.

Back when I was a kid, the players took perfromance enhancing drugs, but they didn't "know" about it.

Things were so tough back then that the even a commisioner died. And one time Kirk Gibson flipped off a fan.

Back when I was a kid the Dodger dogs barked.

The rockies drank Cooors on the field.

Ok, that one was stupid.

Whatever.

Does anybody know how a first place team can be a half a game out?

Back when I was a kid

I used to remember how you could be in first and yet a 1/2 game back, but now I don't remember. It does happen, as I seem to recall.

All those complaints (I don't disagree) and nothing about the gawdawful designated hitter ??!!

Baseball, like the other major sports in the USA, is a victim of the corporate and politically correct slimeballs who are ruining everything they touch.

 

[hannstew]

I think you could be in first and be half a game back by having played a game less than the 2nd place team (assuming they have won the same number of games as you)

 

[Empshel]

It happens occasionally because clubs generally are listed in order of winning percentage but games behind is based on the number of win/loss differential. For example, this is possible:

Los Angeles 31-19 .620 0.5
Colorado 34-21 .618 -

LA is listed first because of the winning percentage, but only being +12, it is a half-game behind Colorado because COL is +13. It doesn't happen often (and I'm not just talking about LA being in first place) and it only happens when there is a disparity in the number of games each team has played. It even happened when you were young, though, I promise you. By the end of the season, it all works itself out.

 

[JoeBlow]

Ok, I realize this sounds dumb, but now I realize that all the first place teams do, in fact, have a single dash below "GB". I don't smoke anything weird, but I was drinking when I wrote that...

At any rate, would anybody like to get together to watch a game somewhere, sometime?

PS All the confusion was because I thought it was a new way of calculating the Wild Card Team, or whatever it's called.

 

[KevinK]

Usually, in tables of standings in newspapers and magazines kept during the season, teams are ordered by the teams' winning percentages, with the number of games they are behind the division leader supplementing the table. On rare occasions, it is possible (and has occurred) for the team with the second best winning percentage to lead the team with the best winning percentage in terms of games back. This usually occurs during the early portion of a season when teams have played an uneven number of games. For example, if Team A has a record of 23–13 and Team B has a record of 26–15, Team A would be recognized as having a better record by virtue of their .639 win percentage to Team B's .634 percentage. However, in the standings, Team A would still be one-half game behind Team B, though they would be ordered ahead of Team B.