[BostonCard]

Prorated, wouldn't it have been 84 losses?  31 losses/60 games, .483 winning percentage x 162 games = 84 losses

I don't want to put words in OF's mouth, but I have a feeling that this isn't a simple proration, but rather an expectation that over 162 games there would be a reversion to the mean (presumably especially on the offensive side of the ball) and that the Giants would have done worse in the remaining 102 games than they did in the 60 they played.

BC

[BostonCard]

Prorated, wouldn't it have been 84 losses?  31 losses/60 games, .483 winning percentage x 162 games = 84 losses

I don't want to put words in OF's mouth, but I have a feeling that this isn't a simple proration, but rather an expectation that over 162 games there would be a reversion to the mean (presumably especially on the offensive side of the ball) and that the Giants would have done worse in the remaining 102 games than they did in the 60 they played.

BC