OT: Thoughts about stats and "sure things."

[Kibitzer]

OK, now that we have put the "Bria Height" controversy to bed (thanks to DD and the WH photos) and the "Rabbit-Ear-Gate" topic has run its course, permit some comments about stats and "sure things" in sports.

Night before last, Red Sox took 5+ hours, 5 relief pitchers and 15 innings to win with a walk-off hit in 15th. OK.

Last night, down 7-1 with Hernandez pitching, they looked dead in 7th. TVs clicked off all over New England. Then a meaningless run (Hernandez was en route to the hotel), 7-2. Bottom of the 9th. Nava starts with a walk, bats again later in the same inning and strokes a 400-foot single with bases loaded (score tied, 7-7), so the Sox (with an infinitestimal statistical chance of winning), celebrate an amazing 8-7 walkoff win.

Statistically virtually (that word means "almost") impossible. So much for "sure things."

What is also amazing is that today there are at least 300,000 Bostonians who swear they were at Fenway Park at the finish of both of these games.

 

[meyers7]

A Sure Thing?

 

[Fightin Choke]

Last night, down 7-1 with Hernandez pitching, they looked dead in 7th. TVs clicked off all over New England. Then a meaningless run (Hernandez was en route to the hotel), 7-2. Bottom of the 9th. Nava starts with a walk, bats again later in the same inning and strokes a 400-foot single with bases loaded (score tied, 7-7), so the Sox (with an infinitestimal statistical chance of winning), celebrate an amazing 8-7 walkoff win.

Statistically virtually (that word means "almost") impossible. So much for "sure things."

What is also amazing is that today there are at least 300,000 Bostonians who swear they were at Fenway Park at the finish of both of these games.

According to an article on CBS Sports (LINK), "When Kendrys Morales singled to leadoff the top of the ninth, Boston had a 0.6 percent change to win. Not six percent, 0.6 percent. That's one out of 166, more or less. This was the one." Those are pretty long odds, I agree.

And Meyers, I LOVE The Sure Thing.

 

[Phil]

OK, now that we have put the "Bria Height" controversy to bed (thanks to DD and the WH photos) and the "Rabbit-Ear-Gate" topic has run its course, permit some comments about stats and "sure things" in sports.

Night before last, Red Sox took 5+ hours, 5 relief pitchers and 15 innings to win with a walk-off hit in 15th. OK.

Last night, down 7-1 with Hernandez pitching, they looked dead in 7th. TVs clicked off all over New England. Then a meaningless run (Hernandez was en route to the hotel), 7-2. Bottom of the 9th. Nava starts with a walk, bats again later in the same inning and strokes a 400-foot single with bases loaded (score tied, 7-7), so the Sox (with an infinitestimal statistical chance of winning), celebrate an amazing 8-7 walkoff win.

Statistically virtually (that word means "almost") impossible. So much for "sure things."

What is also amazing is that today there are at least 300,000 Bostonians who swear they were at Fenway Park at the finish of both of these games.

I didn't stay up for the first win, but I did catch the second. It was amazing.

Technically, the Red Sox won two games with a walk-off hit on 1 August, although the first will go into the books as 31 July, when it started.

 

[reno tony]

In gambling there are basically no "sure things". But the closest to a sure thing bet was on the Dream Team to win the gold medal in the Olympics. I mean the original Dream Team with Bird, Magic etc. But, you had to bet $50 to win $1 and had to place the bet before any games were played. Barring disqualification they weren't going to lose. Haven't seen anything close to that since.

 

[Kibitzer]

In gambling there are basically no "sure things". But the closest to a sure thing bet was on the Dream Team to win the gold medal in the Olympics. I mean the original Dream Team with Bird, Magic etc. But, you had to bet $50 to win $1 and had to place the bet before any games were played. Barring disqualification they weren't going to lose. Haven't seen anything close to that since.

Edwin Moses, high hurdles. Secretariat.

 

[boontonbomber]

the uconn women , 2013-14.

 

[Aluminny69]

The 1972 USA Olympic Basketball Team? Up to that point, they were 63-0 since 1936.

 

[reno tony]

The 1972 USA Olympic Basketball Team? Up to that point, they were 63-0 since 1936.

I was referring to the 1992 team. That was the first year we could use NBA players. They won by an average of almost 44 points per game. Magic, Jordan, Bird, Malone, Stockton, Mullin, Barkley, Pippin, Ewing, Robinson, Drexler and the only college player was Duke's Christian Laettner(Who was picked over Shaq).

 

[Aluminny69]

I was referring to the 1992 team. That was the first year we could use NBA players. They won by an average of almost 44 points per game. Magic, Jordan, Bird, Malone, Stockton, Mullin, Barkley, Pippin, Ewing, Robinson, Drexler and the only college player was Duke's Christian Laettner(Who was picked over Shaq).

I was not referencing your post. Sorry for the confusion. My point was that the 72 team could have been considered a sure thing, until, after three do overs, they lost a very questionable final. I wonder if anyone had money on the Russians?