Sports
29 Sep 11
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitNo I did not. You failed once again to READ what I posted.
I never said it didn't improve the odds. Whodey said it guaranteed the teams making
the playoffs......which is why I started this post.
Please note this year, 75% of the teams that made the playoffs were not big money teams.
Great balls of fire, that's it, the boy does not know how to read.
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitNo I did not. You failed once again to READ what I posted.
I never said it didn't improve the odds. Whodey said it guaranteed the teams making
the playoffs......which is why I started this post.
Please note this year, 75% of the teams that made the playoffs were not big money teams.
Great balls of fire, that's it, the boy does not know how to read.
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitNo I did not. You failed once again to READ what I posted.
I never said it didn't improve the odds. Whodey said it guaranteed the teams making
the playoffs......which is why I started this post.
Please note this year, 75% of the teams that made the playoffs were not big money teams.
Great balls of fire, that's it, the boy does not know how to read.
29 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuithitting heads thirty times in a row is is 2 ^ 30 to 1which is way less odds than 30 to 1.
In my example it is one team either wins or does not win the world series.
That is a 1-1. It is an either / or scenario, just like flipping a coin.
You are trying to say that all teams stand in their way is 30-1
which is akin to saying hitting heads 30 times in a row.
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by tomtom232You are assigning memory, which flipping a coin does not have.
hitting heads thirty times in a row is is 2 ^ 30 to 1which is way less odds than 30 to 1.
It is 30 independent events, each with a 1-1 event outcome.
If you want to get technical and include memory and sequencing, then the odds of
winning the world series would become 30 factorial which is ridiculous.
29 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitIt is not a memory thing it is odds. Every time you flip that coin there is a 50% chance you're streak will be broken.
You are assigning memory, which flipping a coin does not have.
It is 30 independent events, each with a 1-1 event outcome.
If you want to get technical and include memory and sequencing, then the odds of
winning the world series would become 30 factorial which is ridiculous.
Why don't you try it out... at 30 to 1 odds you should hit it thirty times in a row within thirty tries.
29 Sep 11
1 edit
This is the only scenario where you are right. You hit 29 heads in a row... now it is a fifty percent chance that you will hit 30 in a row.
No memory and they are independent events.
If you state from no flips that after thirty flips you will have hit all heads they are no longer independent events but one event with 30 connected events.
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by whodeyhttp://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=140562&page=&page=2
No I did not. You failed once again to READ what I posted.
Great balls of fire, that's it, the boy does not know how to read.
I said that a handful of low budget teams have winning seasons and the handful of high budget teams have losing seasons. In the end this translates into more high budget teams in the playoffs.
I would wager that we would be lucky to see another small market team win the world series in the next decade. In short, it would be an act of God himself in my opinion.
When it is all said and done this correlates to the majority of teams in the playoffs being "rich" teams. This then correlates to a greater chance that a "rich" team will win it all.
These are all direct quotes from you sir out of the thread I listed.
Let me know if you still think this is true considering that only two "big market "rich" teams made the playoffs?
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitYour odds of even getting to the World Series are 1 in 14 for the AL and 1 in 16 for the NL. Only after you've done that do you get to do your 50/50 coin toss. So, to be more precise, AL teams start the season with a 1 in 28 chance of winning the Series, while NL teams have a 1 in 32 chance.
In my example it is one team either wins or does not win the world series.
That is a 1-1. It is an either / or scenario, just like flipping a coin.
You are trying to say that all teams stand in their way is 30-1
which is akin to saying hitting heads 30 times in a row.
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettYou are correct, until next season (I believe) when they go to 15 team leagues.
Your odds of even getting to the World Series are 1 in 14 for the AL and 1 in 16 for the NL. Only after you've done that do you get to do your 50/50 coin toss. So, to be more precise, AL teams start the season with a 1 in 28 chance of winning the Series, while NL teams have a 1 in 32 chance.
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitAnd with 106 World Series having been played, with a chance of winning in the AL that has ranged from 1 in 16 to 1 in 28, one would expect to see the charter AL teams with an average of 5 or 6 World Series championships to their credit. The fact that the Yankees have 27 is indicative of a severe systemic imbalance in their favor. In other words, we do not have, nor have we ever had, an "even playing field."
You are correct, until next season (I believe) when they go to 15 team leagues.
Here's the number of WS championships that the eight charter AL teams actually have (by my count):
Yankees: 27
Athletics: 9
Red Sox: 7
Tigers: 4
Browns/Orioles: 4
Senators/Twins: 3
White Sox: 3
Indians: 2
29 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettHow about ...
And with 106 World Series having been played, with a chance of winning in the AL that has ranged from 1 in 16 to 1 in 28, one would expect to see the charter AL teams with an average of 5 or 6 World Series championships to their credit. The fact that the Yankees have 27 is indicative of a severe systemic imbalance in their favor. In other words, we do not h ics: 9
Red Sox: 7
Tigers: 4
Browns/Orioles: 4
Senators/Twins: 3
White Sox: 3
Indians: 2
Toronto Blue Jays (twice)
Anaheim Angels (once)
Kansas City Royals (once)
Those are the ones you are missing off the top of my head.
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitThey're not charter teams. They're expansion teams. They didn't start until much later. You can't expect them to have won as many championships. Toronto and Seattle didn't start until 1977.
How about ...
Toronto Blue Jays (twice)
Anaheim Angels (once)
Kansas City Royals (once)
Those are the ones you are missing off the top of my head.
29 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSorry, missed the "charter teams" statement, but I am unclear.
They're not charter teams. They're expansion teams. They didn't start until much later. You can't expect them to have won as many championships. Toronto and Seattle didn't start until 1977.
What is your point? Toronto won 2 WS in 25 years
29 Sep 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitThat's within the range that one would expect to see. The Yankees' 27 WS championships are so far off the expected range as to require some explanation other than random chance within a system of even competition. The preponderance of Yankee championships indicates strongly that the system is somehow biased in favor of New York. Although there may be a host of contributing factors, the prime one surely is money.
Sorry, missed the "charter teams" statement, but I am unclear.
What is your point? Toronto won 2 WS in 25 years