Odds of a true .570 team’s losing seven in row: about 1 in 370

Well, except ... it kinda doesn't work that way in real life. The '07 Yankees won 94 games and had a 7-game losing streak. The '06 Athletics won 93 games and had a 7-game losing streak. The '04 Dodgers, 93 wins and an 8-game losing streak. The '01 Astros, 93 wins and an 8-game losing streak. The '00 Mariners, 91 wins and an 8-game losing streak. There are more such teams that don't have long losing streaks, but it's such a common occurrence that to say it's a 1-in-370 shot is not really meaningful.

Edit: And while I'm at it, I should say that I don't just mean to make a semi-snarky observation. Is the "1 in 370" calculation actually incorrect? Is it prey to a fallacy in probability? Is the problem in the way we talk about "odds"? All I know is, if someone offers me 370-to-1 against a 92-win team losing 7 in a row at some point in a given season, I would eagerly take the bet.

.43 ^ 7 = 1/368, so he is talking about losing seven in a row starting at a predetermined point (say, now), and not at some indeterminate point in a 162-game season.

Andrew Miller, P, Marlins -- The Marlins defense is again atrocious (.632 on balls in play). So, his ERA will remain inflated but not to this extent. He striking out about a batter per inning and walking less than three per nine.

Yes, I would hope his ERA would come down from 12.91 and his WHIP would come down from 2.478.

I'll hold off on grabbing him for fantasy though.

All I know is, if someone offers me 370-to-1 against a 92-win team losing 7 in a row at some point in a given season, I would eagerly take the bet.

Putting aside the game-to-game talent variations of a team, the odds of a 92 win team losing 7 in a row at any point in a season are much higher than that.

There are 156 different 7-consecutive-game "chances" for a team to lose 7 in a row over a full season. These probabilities talk about the chances of losing 7 in a row for a particular 7-game stretch.

Edit: And while I'm at it, I should say that I don't just mean to make a semi-snarky observation. Is the "1 in 370" calculation actually incorrect? Is it prey to a fallacy in probability? Is the problem in the way we talk about "odds"? All I know is, if someone offers me 370-to-1 against a 92-win team losing 7 in a row at some point in a given season, I would eagerly take the bet.

Not that I'm a probability expert (I still haven't wrapped my head around that girl with a strange name thing) but isn't the fact that there are more than a hundred 7-game stretches in a given season the reason why you often find 90-plus win teams losing seven straight.

It seems that if you said what are the odds of a true 92-team losing its first seven games, they would be much higher than the one listed.

Now, the 99 percent of the visitors of the site with a better grasp of math than I can give me the appropriate shaming.

.43 ^ 7 = 1/368, so he is talking about losing seven in a row starting at a predetermined point (say, now), and not at some indeterminate point in a 162-game season.

Also assumes that the probability of winning each game is the same and that games are independent, which are obviously untrue assumptions that would both up the probability of 7 losses in a row to start the season.

The calculation also is done for a particular team, rather than just any team (this article could have been written about any two teams who started the season in the same way).

Probability is a #####.

I share the writer's optimism about these players who are unlikely to have history's worst seasons. It should be done in more of a tongue-in-cheek way, though. So tomorrow you can write an article about how Jason Kendall is not a good bet to hit .526 for the whole season, and Aubrey Huff is not going to end the season with 254 RBIs.

Time's running out for that kind of article, guys!!

The Orioles were expected to win about 40 percent of their games (65.5 was their over/under Vegas total). Odds of their winning six in a row were about 1 in 250.

Odds are that the Tigers are a worse than we thought and the Orioles better.

This math on the Orioles is especially lazy, since we know that they lost their first game.

The chances of a .400 team (assuming constant probability for every game) starting out 6-1 are 58-to-1.

When we throw in the fact that the Orioles have played all but 1 game at home, have played 3 mediocre teams, and have managed to miss the #1 starter for all of those teams, the odds of them starting out 6-1 are even better.

If they are a .500 team under these cirumstances, than the odds of them starting out 6-1 are 18-to-1.

In other words, the Orioles are probably just as bad as we thought.

isn't the fact that there are more than a hundred 7-game stretches in a given season the reason why you often find 90-plus win teams losing seven straight

Interesting. So it's like the difference between me betting that any horse at all will win three straight races in this spring's meet, and betting that Wormy Baby will win his next three starting today. OK, I'm not insane :)

I share the writer's optimism about these players who are unlikely to have history's worst seasons. It should be done in more of a tongue-in-cheek way, though.

The headline understates my intent, which was to say you should actively Buy or Sell those guys noted for the (more or less) substantive reasons cited. Fantasy baseball is a primary purpose of the piece, though it's rarely if ever explicitly mentioned given how "regular" fans are turned off by the term. So, it wasn't "Miller should improve," but rather, "Miller is a guy who can actually help you turn a profit at the current market price."

.43 ^ 7 = 1/368, so he is talking about losing seven in a row starting at a predetermined point (say, now), and not at some indeterminate point in a 162-game season.

But that's what makes it meaningless. Neither the team nor the starting point were "predetermined". The O's and Tigers were chosen because of their hot/cold streaks to start the season. The chances that the Mariners will win their 61st through 66th games are might small. The chances that the Mariners will win 6 in a row at some point are fairly high; the chances that some team will win their 61st through 66th games are fairly high. The chances that Salfino will write another misleading article when one of those occurs -- pretty much zero.

The correct calculation is about the probability of this happening at some point in the season. That it happens to have been the first 7 games is irrelevant.

Alternatively, for a rough calculation, the odds that a coin will come up heads 7 times in a row is 1 per 128. The odds that at least one of 30 independent coins will come up heads their first 7 in a row is about 1 in 5. Now that's not a correct calculation either (not all teams are .500 obviously but more importantly teams don't flip independently -- i.e. the Tigers and their opponent can't both win the same game) but it's a lot closer than 1 per 370.

So it's like the difference between me betting that any horse at all will win three straight races in this spring's meet, and betting that Wormy Baby will win his next three starting today. OK, I'm not insane :)

The best explanation I heard about this: it's not surprising when somebody wins the lottery, but it's surprising when you win the lottery.

Alternatively, for a rough calculation, the odds that a coin will come up heads 7 times in a row is 1 per 128. The odds that at least one of 30 independent coins will come up heads their first 7 in a row is about 1 in 5. Now that's not a correct calculation either (not all teams are .500 obviously but more importantly teams don't flip independently -- i.e. the Tigers and their opponent can't both win the same game) but it's a lot closer than 1 per 370.

Good point. I'll clarify next week and cite you assuming that's your real name. What would the odds be to start the season, which is what I was trying to assess?

As I mentioned in the other thread, there is a multiple endpoints problem. Take the famous birthday problem: where a teacher in a class of 35 students asks each student their birthday. Let's say the 22nd student says March 23rd and that happens to be the same birthday as someone earlier in the class.

Asking about the Tigers going 0-7 is the same as asking what are the chances of two students in the same class being born on March 23rd? The problem is we didn't know it was March 23rd until the situation occurred. We didn't know it was the Tigers until they were the ones who went 0-7. It could have been any one of at least 12 teams and we'd be having the same conversation. So the real question is "what is the chance of one of those 12 teams going 0-7 to start the season?" In the birthday problem the question is what are the chances of two students in the same class having the same birthday (though not necessarily March 23rd).

The bigger problem the Tigers have is that they couldn't really afford to spot their competitors this many games so early. Even if they are a 92 win team and the Indians are a 90 win team, that now puts them behind the Indians.

But if I said the what are the odds of the Tigers losing their first seven games, 370-to-1 against is about correct, right?

I understand what you're saying about SOMEONE losing their first seven. But I'm trying to assess the odds of just the Tigers, say, as a prop bet on March 29th.

I'll cite you Voros. First one to call it gets it. Send me an e-mail if you're interested. Site affiliation included. It also goes to most of Comcast SportsNet and papers like the Grand Rapids Press and Providence Journal.

This may have been said already, but no team that has started a season 0-7 has ever made it to the playoffs, I think.

Just sayin'.

no team that has started a season 0-7 has ever made it to the playoffs

And there's something to be said for the notion that an 0-7 start (when you are probably at your healthiest, when the rotation features your best four guys, given April off-days) is worse than losing seven straight at some random point later on. Salfino didn't make that exact point, but he might have.

This may have been said already, but no team that has started a season 0-7 has ever made it to the playoffs, I think.

Just sayin'.

One reason of course is even if they play the rest of the year at that .570 rate, it only gets them to 88-74 which is probably not going to be good enough in the AL.

Another point about good teams having long losing streaks is that they aren't .570 favorites every game. Factors that lower their expected winning percentage include whether they are playing at home or on the road, who they are playing, who is pitching, what injuries they have, etc. The Houston Rocket's long winning streak this season was aided by a soft schedule. It doesn't make it less impressive than other long streaks, as almost all record streaks are aided by favorable factors.

This thread reminds me of when the Sox were winning in 2005 and BP made the gambler's fallacy and insisted that they were likely to play horrible the rest of the way to make up for how they were winning so many one-run games and outperforming their projections.