[BobK]

The pride of Morgan Hill. Pitched a no hitter in the 1956 World Series striking
Out Dale Mitchell to end the game

[BobK]

The pride of Morgan Hill. Pitched a no hitter in the 1956 World Series striking
Out Dale Mitchell to end the game

[newguy]

i doubt that anyone will ever repeat that feat.

[newguy]

i doubt that anyone will ever repeat that feat.

[cardcrimson]

i doubt that anyone will ever repeat that feat.

A great accomplishment, no doubt, but more achievable than the DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak or Hack Wilson's 191 RBIs imo.

Roy Halladay came close a few years back in the playoffs--no hitter with only one walk.

[cardcrimson]

i doubt that anyone will ever repeat that feat.

A great accomplishment, no doubt, but more achievable than the DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak or Hack Wilson's 191 RBIs imo.

Roy Halladay came close a few years back in the playoffs--no hitter with only one walk.

[BostonCard]

The pride of Morgan Hill.  Pitched a no hitter in the 1956 World Series striking
Out Dale Mitchell to end the game

Not just a no-hitter, a perfect game, and the only one ever pitched in the world series (or playoffs for that matter).  There have only ever been 23 perfect games in MLB, out of 218,400 games played.  Thus, the probability of a perfect game being pitched on any given game is 0.01% (1 in 10,000), and the odds of pitching one in a given World series is about 0.06% (the average World series has featured 5.9 games).  The probability of it happening again in the next 100 years is 5.8%.

BC

[BostonCard]

The pride of Morgan Hill.  Pitched a no hitter in the 1956 World Series striking
Out Dale Mitchell to end the game

Not just a no-hitter, a perfect game, and the only one ever pitched in the world series (or playoffs for that matter).  There have only ever been 23 perfect games in MLB, out of 218,400 games played.  Thus, the probability of a perfect game being pitched on any given game is 0.01% (1 in 10,000), and the odds of pitching one in a given World series is about 0.06% (the average World series has featured 5.9 games).  The probability of it happening again in the next 100 years is 5.8%.

BC

[BobK]

Of course a perfect game which I knew once lol. Thanks BC

[BobK]

Of course a perfect game which I knew once lol. Thanks BC

[cardcrimson]

The pride of Morgan Hill.  Pitched a no hitter in the 1956 World Series striking
Out Dale Mitchell to end the game

Not just a no-hitter, a perfect game, and the only one ever pitched in the world series (or playoffs for that matter).  There have only ever been 23 perfect games in MLB, out of 218,400 games played.  Thus, the probability of a perfect game being pitched on any given game is 0.01% (1 in 10,000), and the odds of pitching one in a given World series is about 0.06% (the average World series has featured 5.9 games).  The probability of it happening again in the next 100 years is 5.8%.

BC

5.8%. Well, that's a lot higher than Stanford winning a national championship in football given our current state. . . .

[cardcrimson]

The pride of Morgan Hill.  Pitched a no hitter in the 1956 World Series striking
Out Dale Mitchell to end the game

Not just a no-hitter, a perfect game, and the only one ever pitched in the world series (or playoffs for that matter).  There have only ever been 23 perfect games in MLB, out of 218,400 games played.  Thus, the probability of a perfect game being pitched on any given game is 0.01% (1 in 10,000), and the odds of pitching one in a given World series is about 0.06% (the average World series has featured 5.9 games).  The probability of it happening again in the next 100 years is 5.8%.

BC

5.8%. Well, that's a lot higher than Stanford winning a national championship in football given our current state. . . .

[BostonCard]

Our odds for winning the national title next year are at +10000, which implies a probability of just under 1%.  If we carry that over to the next 100 years, the implied probability of winning a national title in the next 100 years is 37%.

BC

[BostonCard]

Our odds for winning the national title next year are at +10000, which implies a probability of just under 1%.  If we carry that over to the next 100 years, the implied probability of winning a national title in the next 100 years is 37%.

BC

[DC 86]

Our odds for winning the national title next year are at +10000, which implies a probability of just under 1%.  If we carry that over to the next 100 years, the implied probability of winning a national title in the next 100 years is 37%.

BC

SHouldn't the 100 year probability of a championship (assuming 1/101 chances in any season) be 63% (1 - .37)?

In any case, the implied probability of a national championship next year - assuming that the current odds are an accurate representation of likelihood - is lower, and thus the 100 year estimate is lower also.

+10,000 includes the casino's juice, which is usually massive on futures bets. Adding all the implied probabilities on a futures board usually adds up to anywhere from 125% to 200% (US casinos generally have much higher holds than offshore books).

If Stanford is listed at +10,000 (100-1) then it's safe to assume that the true odds once juice is carved out are on the order of 150-1 or thereabouts at best.

Therefore Stanford's true likelihood of winning the national championship next year are closer to 0.66%; however, carried over to the next 100 years the implied probability of winning a national title would still be approx. 49%.

Obviously there are too many variables to put much stock in any of these numbers, but my point is that 100-1 doesn't imply barely a slightly-less-than 1% implied probability because "juice" needs to be stripped out to arrive at the actual figure, however the 100 year projection still offers some hope depending on one's age.

Sorry Qwerty, I had some assumptions different when I first posted this.

[DC 86]

Our odds for winning the national title next year are at +10000, which implies a probability of just under 1%.  If we carry that over to the next 100 years, the implied probability of winning a national title in the next 100 years is 37%.

BC

SHouldn't the 100 year probability of a championship (assuming 1/101 chances in any season) be 63% (1 - .37)?

In any case, the implied probability of a national championship next year - assuming that the current odds are an accurate representation of likelihood - is lower, and thus the 100 year estimate is lower also.

+10,000 includes the casino's juice, which is usually massive on futures bets. Adding all the implied probabilities on a futures board usually adds up to anywhere from 125% to 200% (US casinos generally have much higher holds than offshore books).

If Stanford is listed at +10,000 (100-1) then it's safe to assume that the true odds once juice is carved out are on the order of 150-1 or thereabouts at best.

Therefore Stanford's true likelihood of winning the national championship next year are closer to 0.66%; however, carried over to the next 100 years the implied probability of winning a national title would still be approx. 49%.

Obviously there are too many variables to put much stock in any of these numbers, but my point is that 100-1 doesn't imply barely a slightly-less-than 1% implied probability because "juice" needs to be stripped out to arrive at the actual figure, however the 100 year projection still offers some hope depending on one's age.

Sorry Qwerty, I had some assumptions different when I first posted this.

[qwerty49]

81% is a pretty good number.  OK, I'm convinced and will wait 100 years.  Go Card!

Edit: OK, 49% is still good enough to convince me to hang around for another 100 years.

[qwerty49]

81% is a pretty good number.  OK, I'm convinced and will wait 100 years.  Go Card!

Edit: OK, 49% is still good enough to convince me to hang around for another 100 years.

[SpokaneLee]

The pride of Morgan Hill.  Pitched a no hitter in the 1956 World Series striking
Out Dale Mitchell to end the game

What do you know about him residing in Morgan Hill? I googled his name and “Morgan Hill” and found this as an excerpt from the book, The Perfect Yankee: The Incredible Story of the Greatest Miracle in Baseball ...

“For verifiable feats, and sticking with ballplayers who retired to local communities, Don Larsen springs to mind. The Yankees pitcher tossed the only perfect game – in fact, the only no-hitter of any type – in World Series history, when he sent 27 straight Brooklyn Dodgers back to their dugout with reaching base in Game 5 of the 1956 edition.

Larsen, born in Michigan City, Ind., retired to San Martin after a 14-year Major League career with eight teams – including a 1962-1964 with the San Francisco Giants.”

Hey, Bobk, it’s Larsen with the “e”. He died in Hayden Lake, Idaho, just over the border from Spokane. I just saw this pretty good human interest story about him in the Spokesman Review: 
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/j...transplan/

[SpokaneLee]

The pride of Morgan Hill.  Pitched a no hitter in the 1956 World Series striking
Out Dale Mitchell to end the game

What do you know about him residing in Morgan Hill? I googled his name and “Morgan Hill” and found this as an excerpt from the book, The Perfect Yankee: The Incredible Story of the Greatest Miracle in Baseball ...

“For verifiable feats, and sticking with ballplayers who retired to local communities, Don Larsen springs to mind. The Yankees pitcher tossed the only perfect game – in fact, the only no-hitter of any type – in World Series history, when he sent 27 straight Brooklyn Dodgers back to their dugout with reaching base in Game 5 of the 1956 edition.

Larsen, born in Michigan City, Ind., retired to San Martin after a 14-year Major League career with eight teams – including a 1962-1964 with the San Francisco Giants.”

Hey, Bobk, it’s Larsen with the “e”. He died in Hayden Lake, Idaho, just over the border from Spokane. I just saw this pretty good human interest story about him in the Spokesman Review: 
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/j...transplan/

[BobK]

San Martin is a small town on the border of Morgan Hill so all know.

Thanks SL. I’ll read soon

[BobK]

San Martin is a small town on the border of Morgan Hill so all know.

Thanks SL. I’ll read soon

[Mick]

Larsen, born in Michigan City, Ind., retired to San Martin after a 14-year Major League career with eight teams – including a 1962-1964 with the San Francisco Giants.”

I noticed that Larsen spent all of 1966 with the Giants AAA club, going 8-5 with a 2.50 ERA. Pitched 31 games, 12 as starter. Also spent most of 1967 with that team, then joining the Cubs.

[Mick]

Larsen, born in Michigan City, Ind., retired to San Martin after a 14-year Major League career with eight teams – including a 1962-1964 with the San Francisco Giants.”

I noticed that Larsen spent all of 1966 with the Giants AAA club, going 8-5 with a 2.50 ERA. Pitched 31 games, 12 as starter. Also spent most of 1967 with that team, then joining the Cubs.

[Phogge]

Larsen had a house in the foothills above San Martin. Very accommodating and good host on a two day shoot.

[Phogge]

Larsen had a house in the foothills above San Martin. Very accommodating and good host on a two day shoot.

[newguy]

Larsen had a house in the foothills above San Martin. Very accommodating and good host on a two day shoot.

ok now i'm curious.

[newguy]

Larsen had a house in the foothills above San Martin. Very accommodating and good host on a two day shoot.

ok now i'm curious.