PDA

View Full Version : 162-0?


downstairs
02-24-2006, 08:19 AM
I was kidding around in the Thome homeruns thread and mentioned the Sox going 162-0. WSox8404 mentioned a discussion he had about it even being possible.

I wonder- is it even possible in the MLB? I mean- if you played a million seasons, would there even be the slightest chance of it happening?

I once wrote a rudimentary random number generator and fed it a "team" that was expected to be 120-42, and even then it never quite happened...

I know its completely silly... but there have only ever been a few thousand (?) team seasons in MLB history, and most of them of course have been "average" teams.

1951Campbell
02-24-2006, 08:20 AM
Not even in a million seasons.

SOXintheBURGH
02-24-2006, 08:22 AM
I couldn't even pull it off on Playstation. Damn you, Pat Hentgan.

oeo
02-24-2006, 08:40 AM
I couldn't even pull it off on Playstation. Damn you, Pat Hentgan.

Sure you can, you just reset it before it saves. :cool:

gobears1987
02-24-2006, 08:44 AM
Take 1/2 and raise it by the 162nd power and you get your probability.

gobears1987
02-24-2006, 08:44 AM
Sure you can, you just reset it before it saves. :cool:BINGO!!! I've done that before and went 162-0

oeo
02-24-2006, 08:50 AM
BINGO!!! I've done that before and went 162-0
I've never done it before, mostly because I really don't feel like playing the whole game over again, unless its a big game at the end of a season that I really need to win. :D:

But in Madden, sometimes it will piss me off at some of the bull**** plays the computer pulls off and I'll reset it and play the game over again. I like to keep my baseball seasons somewhat realistic...I only play probably 1 game of a series, and maybe 2 or all of them if they are big games.

BNLSox
02-24-2006, 09:04 AM
Anything is possible. Going 162-0 would be absolutely insane, and i truly doubt it will ever happen... but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

241-0 is impossible under the current regular season scheduling however.

downstairs
02-24-2006, 09:06 AM
Take 1/2 and raise it by the 162nd power and you get your probability.

Well, the key is not taking 1/2... but taking the "probability" of a great team winning. Say a team was a .750 team... or a .900 team even.

If it were a .900 team, I think the chances of them going 162-0 is only 1 in 25,000,000....
]:cool:

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2006, 09:27 AM
Well, the key is not taking 1/2... but taking the "probability" of a great team winning. Say a team was a .750 team... or a .900 team even.

If it were a .900 team, I think the chances of them going 162-0 is only 1 in 25,000,000....
]:cool:This is easy (but requires exponential notation):

.900 team - 1 in 25 million
.800 team - 1 in 5e15
.700 team - 1 in 1.2e25
.600 team - 1 in 8.7e35
.500 team - 1 in 5.8e48

samram
02-24-2006, 09:32 AM
This is easy (but requires exponential notation):

.900 team - 1 in 25 million
.800 team - 1 in 5e15
.700 team - 1 in 1.2e25
.600 team - 1 in 8.7e35
.500 team - 1 in 5.8e48

Dude, "e" isn't a number.:redneck

Anyway, wouldn't happen even in a million billion seasons.

voodoochile
02-24-2006, 09:38 AM
Take 1/2 and raise it by the 162nd power and you get your probability.
Well take the best single season record % in regular season history (M's in 01 or whatever) and use that as the percentage you raise to the 162 power.

Using .75 as the chance of winning the odds are:

.00000000000000000000057534

Even using a normal 3 SD it would take a LOT longer than 1M years for the odds to even approach 99%. Heck if MLB had been around since the Big Bang it still wouldn't have happened...

TommyJohn
02-24-2006, 09:39 AM
I couldn't even pull it off on Playstation. Damn you, Pat Hentgan.

Best I ever did in Playstation was 119-43, and that was with a specially
created all-time White Sox team.

chaerulez
02-24-2006, 09:40 AM
Why would anyone think this is possible? A NFL team has a hard time going 16-0. And an NBA team hasn't even come close to 81-0. So until that can happen, we shouldn't even consider this a possibility.

Irishsoxfan
02-24-2006, 09:44 AM
Terry Prachett (author of Discworld books) used to say, "Million to 1 shots happen 9 times out of 10". There is a faint, ok very faint, ring of truth to that.

TommyJohn
02-24-2006, 09:46 AM
Not to mention the fact that if it did ever happen, said team would hold
champagne parties every year after the last undefeated team lost.

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2006, 10:08 AM
Well take the best single season record % in regular season history (M's in 01 or whatever) and use that as the percentage you raise to the 162 power.

Using .75 as the chance of winning the odds are:

.00000000000000000000057534

Even using a normal 3 SD it would take a LOT longer than 1M years for the odds to even approach 99%. Heck if MLB had been around since the Big Bang it still wouldn't have happened...In 16 billion seasons, the odds are still almost 11 billion to 1 against it happening.

Now, if Mike Ditka was coach....

oeo
02-24-2006, 10:52 AM
Who has gotten the most undefeated wins? And how many was it before they lost?

Rooney4Prez56
02-24-2006, 11:00 AM
Dude, "e" isn't a number.:redneck


Its for scientific notation.

But seriously, if only one football team can go 17-0, and no basketball or hockey teams can go undefeated in their respective sports, I don't think it could happen in baseball.

SOXintheBURGH
02-24-2006, 11:19 AM
Best I ever did in Playstation was 119-43, and that was with a specially
created all-time White Sox team.

I went 159-3 with the 2003 team. All three losses were from Pat Hentgan, for some reason, I couldn't hit him.. Lost like 2-0, 1-0, 2-1 I believe.

Professor
02-24-2006, 11:19 AM
With all this math, this thread sounds like Moneyball theory.

Ball players are human, all too human. Imagine the psychological pressure on them even if they got to 100-0--still needing 62 wins to pull off the feat!

Stats and figures have their limitations.

SOXintheBURGH
02-24-2006, 11:22 AM
With all this math, this thread sounds like Moneyball theory.

Ball players are human, all too human. Imagine the psychological pressure on them even if they got to 100-0--still needing 62 wins to pull off the feat!

Stats and figures have their limitations.

Thomas Walk Off Beats Sox in Oakland

Biggest Chokers Ever?

Iwritecode
02-24-2006, 11:32 AM
BINGO!!! I've done that before and went 162-0

I don't think I've ever lost a baseball game on any system when playing against the computer...

doogiec
02-24-2006, 11:50 AM
So since the statisticians are on this thread, here's a good question:

What are the odds of any given baseball team (not that I have one in mind) going 98 years without winning a championship? When you consider that there were only 16 teams before expansion, the typical team started each seaon 15-1. Even in modern days, its 29-1 for the typical team. So what are the odds of being on the downside of that 98 times in a row?

LongLiveFisk
02-24-2006, 11:52 AM
Think about how often a football team goes 16-0 and that should answer your question.

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2006, 12:47 PM
So since the statisticians are on this thread, here's a good question:

What are the odds of any given baseball team (not that I have one in mind) going 98 years without winning a championship? When you consider that there were only 16 teams before expansion, the typical team started each seaon 15-1. Even in modern days, its 29-1 for the typical team. So what are the odds of being on the downside of that 98 times in a row?Assuming random chance with 16 teams, the chances of not winning for 98 straight years are 0.18%.

ma-gaga
02-24-2006, 02:02 PM
I wonder- is it even possible in the MLB? I mean- if you played a million seasons, would there even be the slightest chance of it happening?

I just want to know who would win the Cy Young award if this happened.

The guy with 378 strikeouts and 4 shutouts.
The guy with 412 strikeouts, and 1 shut out.
or
The guy with 298 strikeouts and 5 no-hitters.

McCuddy
02-24-2006, 03:00 PM
Consider that no MLB team has ever won even 30 in a row... the 1916 Giants won 26 in a row for the record.

downstairs
02-24-2006, 03:25 PM
So since the statisticians are on this thread, here's a good question:

What are the odds of any given baseball team (not that I have one in mind) going 98 years without winning a championship? When you consider that there were only 16 teams before expansion, the typical team started each seaon 15-1. Even in modern days, its 29-1 for the typical team. So what are the odds of being on the downside of that 98 times in a row?

I actually did the math on this once... taking into account the number of teams in each and every year.

The likelihood of the Sox not winning for 88 years in a row is was 1.06%. Or, better put- there is a 98.94% chance that if you form a team in 1918 and play until 2004, you'll win at least one World Series.

Now... what if you have two teams in the same city in 1918... what are the chances of never having a World Championship in that city through 2004?

0.0086%... or, better put- there was a 99.99914% chance that there would be a World Series winner in that time. And it didn't happen!

downstairs
02-24-2006, 03:28 PM
With all this math, this thread sounds like Moneyball theory.

Ball players are human, all too human. Imagine the psychological pressure on them even if they got to 100-0--still needing 62 wins to pull off the feat!

Stats and figures have their limitations.

Actually, I am not sure there would be that much more pressure- because all of the pressure of the season is off of you. You've basically clinched in July or so.

The added pressure may come from all the other teams trying to be the one to beat you.

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2006, 03:34 PM
I actually did the math on this once... taking into account the number of teams in each and every year.

The likelihood of the Sox not winning for 88 years in a row is was 1.06%. Or, better put- there is a 98.94% chance that if you form a team in 1918 and play until 2004, you'll win at least one World Series.

Now... what if you have two teams in the same city in 1918... what are the chances of never having a World Championship in that city through 2004?

0.0086%... or, better put- there was a 99.99914% chance that there would be a World Series winner in that time. And it didn't happen!The thing to remember, though, is that there are many teams. So if the chances of any given team not winning is 1% and if you have 30 teams, then the chances of some one of those 30 not winning is 30%. Improbable events happen every day.

samram
02-24-2006, 03:34 PM
Its for scientific notation.

Yeah, I know. Hence, the goofy smile after the sentence.

crazyozzie02
02-24-2006, 03:47 PM
Qouting Chirs Jericho: "Never EEEEEEVVVVVVEEEEEERRRRRR!!!!!!!"

IlliniSox4Life
02-24-2006, 04:14 PM
So since the statisticians are on this thread, here's a good question:

What are the odds of any given baseball team (not that I have one in mind) going 98 years without winning a championship? When you consider that there were only 16 teams before expansion, the typical team started each seaon 15-1. Even in modern days, its 29-1 for the typical team. So what are the odds of being on the downside of that 98 times in a row?

But the real question is what are the odds of a team not winning it in 98 years if they start out more along the lines of a 100-1 shot. And the odds of them not winning then is ~37%. In order for the odds of them not winning for 98 years to be >50% (meaning it is more likely they would've lost for 98 years than won any of those), they would have to have started out each season as a 142-1 shot. Those are some pretty bad teams.

StockdaleForVeep
02-24-2006, 04:29 PM
Someone has a better chance of batting 1.000 for a legit full season than a team winning every game

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2006, 04:55 PM
Someone has a better chance of batting 1.000 for a legit full season than a team winning every gameNo he doesn't. Not by a long shot. A .300 hitter hitting safely 50 consecutive times is about the same odds as a .750 team winning 162 in a row.

ondafarm
02-24-2006, 05:35 PM
Well take the best single season record % in regular season history (M's in 01 or whatever) and use that as the percentage you raise to the 162 power.

Using .75 as the chance of winning the odds are:

.00000000000000000000057534

Even using a normal 3 SD it would take a LOT longer than 1M years for the odds to even approach 99%. Heck if MLB had been around since the Big Bang it still wouldn't have happened...

The best team in major league history was: the 1906 Cubs who went 116-36 (.753) and then promptly lost the World Series to the White Sox. Look at it this way, the Giants won 96 games and finished 20 back.

soxinem1
02-24-2006, 05:37 PM
Not even in a million seasons.

Maybe in the PS2 version of 'Ran Santo cub Baseball' you can go 162-0!

ondafarm
02-24-2006, 09:02 PM
I hear that the Flubs are 162-0 in simulated games last year !!!

itsnotrequired
02-24-2006, 10:44 PM
Dude, "e" isn't a number.:redneck

Not a rational one anyway...

:rolleyes:

StockdaleForVeep
02-25-2006, 04:56 PM
A better argument would be could a team go 0-162

gbergman
02-26-2006, 01:28 AM
Someone has a better chance of batting 1.000 for a legit full season than a team winning every game

Cliff Politte last year:D:

gehrtsox7
02-26-2006, 01:37 AM
Sometimes I wonder if the people on this site just dont have anything better to do. GO SOX! If the sox were undefeated all season it would be cool, but booooring! The end of this past year was awesome because it went down to the wire and we came out on top.

StockdaleForVeep
02-26-2006, 03:49 PM
Cliff Politte last year:D:

Hahah im still in shock when i was playin mvp 05 and i had to bat in the nl games and my pitchers had better hittin days than my hitters, garland had a double, politte got an rbi and some god forsaken way hermanson got a triple

Thanx cub defense

asboog
02-26-2006, 05:56 PM
*oops wrong thread*

Baby Fisk
02-27-2006, 08:46 AM
The 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings went 57-0. They continued their undefeated streak into 1870, going 81-0 before their first loss. It is recognized as the longest winning streak in professional baseball history. linky (http://www.1869reds.com/history.htm)