Ok there’s an I hope mistake on this page if you find it and it’s not a mistake … please explain … thanks (click on the blue letters )
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/standings?ocid=binghp01
No mistake, this time of year the Pirates often have a winning record.
I don’t see any errors offhand. Can you let us know what it is that looks suspect to you rather than having us try to figure it out?
Do you mean the URL in your OP, or some blue letters on the standings page?
I don’t see any errors on the standings page.
The NL East being 7-20 at this point of the season with only one team (barely) above .500 isn’t a mistake even if it looks like one.
So we’re looking for a mistake that’s not a mistake?
And I thought it might be Detroit’s record.
Maybe there was a mistake that was fixed in an update.
I just did a quick comparison of this page versus the ESPN standings page. I saw no differences.
So there’s either no mistake, or both pages have the same mistake. Or I missed something obvious.
Do tell, please.
The only thing I can see that stands out is, the Mets and Tigers have each played only four games.
This is not a mistake; two games against each other have been rained out. Apparently, they are supposed to be playing something called a “doub-le-head-er” today to help them catch up to the rest of the league.
they fixed it … it was they had a 3-0 record in first place above 4 -2 and I wondered if there was a reason for it
…Isn’t 3-0 a better record than 4-2?
At least in baseball.
The reason is that a 1.000 winning percentage is better than a 0.667 winning percentage.
ahh well if i had noticed it earlier and copied it like I thought I did I wouldn’t of confused everyone
And the Pirates still have a winning record!
I wondered whether it was an anomaly like this. Sometimes (though pretty rarely) you will find a team listed in first place with a higher winning percentage than the second place team, but something like a half game behind because of the difference in games played and way GB are calculated. (Though I’m not sure if this is what happened here, as I didn’t see the original standings).
One might debate whether, say, 3-0 is a better or worse record than 5-1. On the one hand, the 3-0 team has a higher percentage of wins, while the 5-1 team has a greater win-loss difference. Certainly, one wouldn’t expect a 3-0 team to maintain that same percentage for the entire season, because a baseball team, even a very good one, never goes undefeated for the whole season. To do a proper statistical analysis, you’d need to know more information about baseball and the typical distribution of long-term winning percentages.
But the two extreme cases are always going to be comparing by percentage, and comparing by difference, and the “true measure” of what record is best will always be somewhere in between there. So if one team is better than another in both percentage and in difference, the first team definitely has a better record. And 3-0 is definitely better than 4-2, by either measure, and so, yes, a 3-0 team definitely should be ranked ahead of a 4-2 team.
I’ve always been under the impression that it’s winning percentage rankings that determine things like Division Winner status in MLB, but explicit confirmation has been surprisingly hard to find. Does anyone have a cite for this?
It’s a distinction without a difference. They all play the same number of games. If a game is missed because of weather or other circumstance, it will always be made up. They will sometimes skip a makeup game but only if it doesn’t matter in the final standings