What's a better record?

Author: TheUnderdog ,

Posts

Total: 28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
A team that has 10 wins and 2 losses?

Or a team that has 5 wins and no losses?

Assume all their games were equally as tough.
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
--> @TheUnderdog
a team that has 10 wins and 2 loses subtract 2 from ten you get 7

5<7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @drlebronski
You could make that argument, but the win percentage is higher with the 5-0 record than the 10-2 record. If (Wins-Losses) is your sole metric for who has the better record, a team with 101 wins and 50 losses would have a better record than an undefeated team with 50 wins and 0 losses.

At the same time, if win percentage was the only thing that mattered, someone with a 1-0 record would be better than someone with a 100-1 record.

You need both win percentage and the W-L formula to figure out who has the better record.  If you use just win percentage, then someone with a 1-0 record did better than someone with a 100-1 record.  If you use just the W-L formula, then a team with 101 wins and 50 losses would have a better record than an undefeated team with 50 wins and 0 losses.

There needs to be an objective way to determine who is better for us to find out that meets both extremes.
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
--> @TheUnderdog

At the same time, if win percentage was the only thing that mattered, someone with a 1-0 record would be better than someone with a 100-1 record.
no,

99 wins is greater than 1 win.

Subtract the number of losses from the number of wins
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @drlebronski
Win percentage = Win count / Game count

1 win / 1 game = 100%
100 wins / 101 games = 99.009901%

By the win percentage formula method, a 1-0 record is better than a 100-1 record.

Subtract the number of losses from the number of wins
Here you are describing the Wins-Losses formula method.

By this method, a 101-50 record is better than a 50-0 record.  In other words, winning about 2/3 of your games would be better than winning 50 straight times.

Both methods that I'm aware of have flaws when taken to the extreme.  The only method that can work is a method that both displays a 100-1 record as better than a 1-0 record and that displays a 50-0 record as better than a 101-50 record.
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
--> @TheUnderdog

1 win / 1 game = 100%
100 wins / 101 games = 99.009901%

its not about win percentages its about who has more wins.


By the win percentage formula method, a 1-0 record is better than a 100-1 record.

thats not my formula


By this method, a 101-50 record is better than a 50-0 record.  In other words, winning about 2/3 of your games would be better than winning 50 straight times.


yea, more wins.

51-50
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @drlebronski
But I think it's obvious that someone with a 101-50 record (while pretty good) isn't nearly as good as someone who won 50 consecutive times and never lost once.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,675
3
3
3
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
3
--> @TheUnderdog
Assume all their games were equally as tough.
A 10-2 record? I wouldn’t say winnable games aren’t equally as tough as unwinnable games.

But since we’re on the topic of victories and defeats would you say it’s more difficult to win an NBA Finals or a Super Bowl?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,041
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
--> @TheUnderdog
"But I think it's obvious that someone with a 101-50 record (while pretty good) isn't nearly as good as someone who won 50 consecutive times and never lost once"

A 101 - 50 record can have 50 consecutive wins. 

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 5,496
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @drlebronski
Subtract 2 from 10 and you get 7.

Is that what they teach you in the U.S.


You were joking, weren't you?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,498
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @TheUnderdog
It definitely depends on the circumstances. These are equally impressive, exactly equally so in fact.

10-1 is initially superior to 5-0 and 5-0 is initially superior to 10-3

but 10-2 vs 5-0 is that fine line in the 'sand' where that team may have realistically been equal to the 5-0. 

The reason is that a 5-0 team starts to be studied and challenged by more informed opponents who know their strats, the 10-2 team already has begun to be studied and exploited.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @sadolite
A 101 - 50 record can have 50 consecutive wins. 
Extremely unlikely.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,041
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
--> @TheUnderdog
Equally as likely as 50-0.  Wait I take that back, Charlie Zelnoff has a 346-0 boxing record. 

13 days later

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @sadolite
Having 50 consecutive wins in a series is much less likely than having 50 wins in a 101-50 record.

50-0 is better than 101-50.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,041
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
--> @TheUnderdog
Likelihood isn't really relevant. It could happen and must be considered.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,144
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
--> @sadolite
If you won 50 consecutive times, then had a 51-50 record, I'd say you did worse for the 51-50 record than the 50-0 record, making 101-50 worse than 50-0.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 594
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
--> @TheUnderdog
Of curse, any loss is a record-reducer, but, the  greater measure point is not necessarily overall record, but recent performance. A game is not merely playing by the rules, but learning to play better, with greater consistency. What have you done for us lately? After all, after season's end, everyone goes back to 0-0, and its a new day and a new scorecard.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,041
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
--> @TheUnderdog
That's one way to look at it. The point is 50 consecutive wins are possible. You could lose 26 then win 50 then loose 25, mix it any way you want.  One team or person   has played more than the other and both have a 50 win streak. 50 consecutive wins are equally unlikely in either scenario if you want to push likeliness. Some obscure sumo wrestler is all I could find with 50 official consecutive wins, actual number is  63.  I think George Forman made it to 37. So one person in all of sports history. No teams at all.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 72
Posts: 2,402
4
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
4
8
11
10 wins and 2 losses.

There are people on DArt who debated once, won once, then left. Ought we consider those people greater than Oromagi?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,041
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
--> @Intelligence_06
Winning debates on here and the real world are two separate things. People don't debate like this in real life, there are no rules and character assassination is argument # 1. Oromagi would be eaten alive in  real world debate. He's too long winded and no one would have the patients to listen. You have to make your point and assassinate your opponents character  in two sentences or less. That is the attention span of the average voter.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 921
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
--> @sadolite
Appealing to the lowest common denominator is how one got into The White House.


sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,041
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
--> @Reece101
Yes, quite relevant to the topic. But anyway, no matter who is in the Whitehouse I will get screwed as a taxpayer and someone who plays by the rules. Fucking meaningless to me. All govt does is make it harder to live and earn money. What would I do without the federal govt.

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 921
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
--> @sadolite
I would give you advice about focussing locally and support non-corporate backed politicians, but you would probably ignore me and fight against your own interests anyway.

sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,041
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
--> @Reece101
My interests are not your interests and neither is any politicians interests my interests not even 30% close to my interests. Reagan and Trump came the closest at about 65%. That's how I vote. No one in Washington DC even represents 1% of my interests right now.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,498
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @sadolite
how did you calculate the 65% ?