Tim Ellsworth

14 Responses to “It’s Open Blog Friday”

1. Marty says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am
   

   If Leia knew the Falcon was being tracked, why did they head straight for the rebel base? Why not land on another planet, board another ship, and then go?

2. Luke says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 10:15 am
   

   No time, they had to escape. After all, they were flying in the “fastest ship in the galaxy”.

3. Jeremy says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am
   

   Marty, two words: George Lucas.

   Tim, it’s already been caughtin.

4. Peter R says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
   

   Okay, you guys need to help me settle a debate.

   What is the official definition of “games over .500″ ?

   A buddy of mine claims that a 91-win baseball team is 20 games over .500 (91 wins, 71 losses, 91-71=20).

   I say they’re 10 games over .500 since they’ve won 10 more games than a .500 team.

   Who is right?

5. Tim says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
   

   Your friend. Games over .500 is the number of games over .500, not the number of wins more than a .500 team.

6. Abe says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
   

   nope, I disagree Tim. Not that I’m a sports guy but I am a math guy. A .500 team at the end of the season would be 81 and 81. If you ended up 82 and 80 you are only 1 game over .500.

   I’m not sure what the sports vernacular is but mathematically speaking, Peter is right.

7. Tim says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
   

   Maybe mathematically speaking, but ask anyone in sports what 91-71 is, and they’ll say it’s 20 games over .500.

8. Peter R. says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
   

   Tim, I don’t know about the “ask anyone in sports” part - I’ve heard it both ways, and have never understood the wins-losses definition, because it actually has nothing to do with .500. Going back to my original examples, the 91-win team would be 10 *games* (not wins) ahead in the standings.

9. Tim says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
   

   Guys,

   Do a search for “games over .500,” and you’ll see in probably 95 percent of the cases (at least) that the people using that language are using it exactly the way I’ve described it. That includes the prominent newspapers and news services, like AP, in their sports reporting. So that’s what I mean when I suggest that asking anyone in sports will get you the answer that I’ve given.

   Now, if you want to be a math stickler and suggest that such usage is incorrect, that’s another issue — and, in my opinion, is making the issue more complicated than what it is. I think you’re confusing the calculation of games ahead in standings and games over .500, which are two different things.

   When someone refers to “games over .500,” what they typically mean is “how many more games has a team won that it has lost?” If a team is 30-20, it would have to lose 10 straight games to be at .500 — thus, the terminology that the team is 10 games over .500.

10. Peter R. says:
    June 27th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
    

    Fair enough, Tim.

    and, in my opinion, is making the issue more complicated than what it is.

    Isn’t that what the internet is for?

11. Cineaste says:
    June 28th, 2008 at 5:19 am
    

    I’m curious if you guys have an opinion about James Dobson’s words about Barack Obama. From JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com “James Dobson doesn’t speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide; he doesn’t speak for me when he speaks as the final arbiter on the meaning of the Bible.” Does James Dobson speak for you guys?

    For example…

    “Indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition”

    - Barack Obama

    “What [Obama is] trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe” (Focus on the Family Broadcast, 6/24).

    I don’t think he was saying that at all.

12. Peter R. says:
    June 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
    

    Speaking of official definitions of things, did anyone see the Angels-Dodgers game last night? Jered Weaver and Jose Arredondo no-hit the Dodgers, but the Angels lost due to an unearned run. It doesn’t count as an official no-hitter since the Dodgers (the home team) didn’t come to bat in the 9th inning. What a crazy game.

13. Jeremy says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
    

    Even on Tuesdays, I love the sound of crickets.

14. Verne says:
    July 8th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
    

    Hey Tim how about putting a poll on should Bret Favre return or not?