SDS Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 continually promote mathematical ignorance? The concept of a percentage is not that hard. A 0.913 save "percentage" is not a percentage - it is a ratio of saves to shots. 91.3% is the save percentage. Although it doesn't aggravate me nearly as much as the dreaded +11 turnover "ratio" in football, it is clearly a mindless misuse of an easy concept. Who wants to take a billboard out with me and protest this? carp? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Same goes for the winning "percentage" in baseball. I'd like to give 110% and protest with you, but I've gotta save my outrage for, well, something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 continually promote mathematical ignorance? The concept of a percentage is not that hard. A 0.913 save "percentage" is not a percentage - it is a ratio of saves to shots. 91.3% is the save percentage. Although it doesn't aggravate me nearly as much as the dreaded +11 turnover "ratio" in football, it is clearly a mindless misuse of an easy concept. Who wants to take a billboard with me and protest this? carp? Anyone? Batting average is another great one. Although it is a lot easier to say "he's batting 300". When it comes to save percentage, would anyone even noticed if they changed the name to save rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted April 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Same goes for the winning "percentage" in baseball. I'd like to give 110% and protest with you, but I've gotta save my outrage for, well, something else. Having our children be literate in math is necessary for us to compete in the world. Surely you could show a little outrage in the name of the children - no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 ' having our children be literate in math is necessary for us to compete in the world. Surely you could show a little outrage in the name of the children - no? I had forgotten to think about the children. Let's march. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Why is it called hardware? It's not all hard and you don't wear any of it? Seriously, that's a good question regarding save percentages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 While we're at it, stop calling them RBIs; you're really saying "runs batted ins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 wikipedia agrees that the practice has its roots in how baseball batting averages are reported. The word "percentage" is often misused in the context of sports statistics, when the referenced number is expressed as a decimal proportion, not a percentage: "The Phoenix Suns' Shaquille O'Neal led the NBA with a .609 field goal percentage (FG%) during the 2008-09 season." (O'Neal made 60.9% of his shots, not 0.609%.) The practice is probably related to the similar way that batting averages are quoted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage a good discussion of baseball's practice in this regard appears here: http://ask.metafilter.com/76738/Parts-Per-Hundred-or-Parts-Per-One Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 While we're at it, stop calling them RBIs; you're really saying "runs batted ins." not so sure about that one. When an abbreviation can be used to refer to a singular thing — a run batted in, a meal ready-to-eat, a prisoner of war — it's surely a good idea to form the plural by adding "s" to the abbreviation: RBIs, MREs, POWs. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 When I was in 3rd or 4th grade and hadn't learned percentages this ###### confused me to no end, talking about Hasek's save "percentage" when it was a decimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 It hadn't bothered be until now. Thanks Scott, for bringing something else to my attention for my OCD to obsess about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 not so sure about that one. When an abbreviation can be used to refer to a singular thing — a run batted in, a meal ready-to-eat, a prisoner of war — it's surely a good idea to form the plural by adding "s" to the abbreviation: RBIs, MREs, POWs. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm Dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Same goes for the winning "percentage" in baseball. I'd like to give 110% and protest with you, but I've gotta save my outrage for, well, something else. Well done.... I got a chuckle out of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 not so sure about that one. When an abbreviation can be used to refer to a singular thing — a run batted in, a meal ready-to-eat, a prisoner of war — it's surely a good idea to form the plural by adding "s" to the abbreviation: RBIs, MREs, POWs. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm This reminds me of how I always want to type it out as "an UFA" and "a RFA". I always read those abbreviations in my head as their full spelled out meaning "unrestricted free agent" and "restricted...", so the a and an make sense. But if someone else reads it as the letters, those words should be reversed. Luckily, I'm always right. So it's someone else's problem and not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 This reminds me of how I always want to type it out as "an UFA" and "a RFA". I always read those abbreviations in my head as their full spelled out meaning "unrestricted free agent" and "restricted...", so the a and an make sense. But if someone else reads it as the letters, those words should be reversed. Luckily, I'm always right. So it's someone else's problem and not mine. Torturous I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 This is going to turn into an epic arithmegrammar thread. I can sense it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresMojo Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 While we're at it, stop calling them RBIs; you're really saying "runs batted ins." When you say "Runs Batted In" it is plural for 2 or more "Runs Batted In" When it's just 1, you wouldnt say "Smith has one runs batted in" It's more the fact that the 's' at the end is plural for "Runs" not the "In" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Come on now, hockey abandoned all hope regarding mathematical integrity when they started rewarding points for losses. It is now possible for a team to lose EVERY game and still finish with a, get the pitchforks ready, .500 winning percentage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Come on now, hockey abandoned all hope regarding mathematical integrity when they started rewarding points for losses. It is now possible for a team to lose EVERY game and still finish with a, get the pitchforks ready, .500 winning percentage! I don't think so. Winning percentage does not take into account points. At least I don't think it does. In fact, I don't see winning percentage as listed anywhere on the NHL or TSN sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 continually promote mathematical ignorance? The concept of a percentage is not that hard. A 0.913 save "percentage" is not a percentage - it is a ratio of saves to shots. 91.3% is the save percentage. Although it doesn't aggravate me nearly as much as the dreaded +11 turnover "ratio" in football, it is clearly a mindless misuse of an easy concept. Who wants to take a billboard out with me and protest this? carp? Anyone? Would you prefer permillage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 I don't think so. Winning percentage does not take into account points. At least I don't think it does. In fact, I don't see winning percentage as listed anywhere on the NHL or TSN sites. i don't think they use winning percentage in Hockey, thats what points are for. The winning percentage for a team that loses all its games in OT would be 0% (or .000 :thumbsup: ) but they would have 41 points (which isn't much less than the Oilers had this year) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Not really the time or the place but can we do away with MPG & MSRP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Can people stop saying 'a panini sandwich'. Panini is the plural word for sandwiches. Panino is a singular sandwich. People keep saying 'a sandwiches sandwich'. Now if they said 'a sandwich's sandwich' - that would be a whole different thing altogether. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 i don't think they use winning percentage in Hockey, thats what points are for. The winning percentage for a team that loses all its games in OT would be 0% (or .000 :thumbsup: ) but they would have 41 points (which isn't much less than the Oilers had this year) a team that loses all of it's games in overtime would have 82 points (1 for each game) ;) "We really got caught a little behind the eight ball early in the season, but we're back to .500," defenseman Jordan Leopold said. "We've been talking about it, and we're here. Now we've really got to collect some points and get on a roll here." This quote was from when we reached 18-18-5 in January. We were .500 with 18 wins and 23 losses :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 a team that loses all of it's games in overtime would have 82 points (1 for each game) ;) This quote was from when we reached 18-18-5 in January. We were .500 with 18 wins and 23 losses :doh: They were referring to points percentage, not winning percentage. At that time they had collected 50% of the points available to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.