OnlyBucs

795459484F5E49090A3B0 wrote: You know, we're 23-30 in our last 46 games.  That doesn't sound all that great, but that's more than 25% of the year at an 87 win clip.
Something is amiss with that math. 




Fixed. Good catch. Thanks.

1C1417203613343B550 wrote: You know, we're 23-30 in our last 46 games.  That doesn't sound all that great, but that's more than 25% of the year at an 87 win clip.
Something is amiss with that math. 




Fixed.  Good catch.  Thanks.
Not so fast there! 23+20 = 43.

I am so confused.



I didn't understand how seven games under .500 would get the Pirates to 87 wins. That is a losing record. 81-81 is .500.

715C51404756410102330 wrote: You know, we're 23-30 in our last 46 games.  That doesn't sound all that great, but that's more than 25% of the year at an 87 win clip.
Something is amiss with that math. 






I thing we need to get a "math checker" on this site similar to spelling checker. Especially for a guy from Iowa! Will have Gunner look into it.

3E353D3134352E6B6D1A233B3235357439355A0 wrote: I am so confused.



I didn't understand how seven games under .500 would get the Pirates to 87 wins.  That is a losing record.  81-81 is .500.


It's no confusing at all Dogknot. If you get IABucFan's math correct and they are actually 7 game under .500 now all they have to do is go 12 games over .500 the rest of the way!

25040C250E06610 wrote: I am so confused.



I didn't understand how seven games under .500 would get the Pirates to 87 wins.  That is a losing record.  81-81 is .500.


It's no confusing at all Dogknot.  If you get IABucFan's math correct and they are actually 7 game under .500 now all they have to do is go 12 games over .500 the rest of the way!

795459484F5E49090A3B0 wrote: You know, we're 23-30 in our last 46 games.  That doesn't sound all that great, but that's more than 25% of the year at an 87 win clip.
Something is amiss with that math. 




Fixed.  Good catch.  Thanks.
Not so fast there! 23+20 = 43.


Sheesh... ::)