Entertainment desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 24

Teams that won a championship in their lone season of existence

What are examples of sports teams that only existed for a single season, but won a championship in that season? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This question sounds familiar. Have you consulted the archives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Birmingham Americans qualify. However, the WFL itself only lasted a season and a half. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Formula 1 racing team Brawn GP, which was formed on 6 March 2009 from the assets of Honda Racing F1 Team by a management buyout led by Team Principal Ross Brawn, after parent company Honda had pulled out of the sport in December 2008.

Brawn (having adapted their cars to use Mercedez-Benz engines), proceeded to win the 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship, whose first and last races were on 29 March and 1 November 2009 respectively, although they wrapped up the win at the penultimate race on 18 October 2009.

On 16 November 2009 Brawn were bought out by Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler AG and Aabar Investments to become Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport. Thus Brawn GP only existed for 8 months and 10 days, from 23 days before to 15 days after the active span of the season they won. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was the previous thread Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Entertainment/2018_July_14#What_is_the_shortest-lived_F1_team_in_the_21st_century.3F_What_is_the_shortest-lived_F1_team_in_terms_of_time_of_existence.3F. It was specifically about F!. This question is a bit broader. MarnetteD|Talk 16:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was another question entitled "teams that won a championship one season but no longer existed the following season" here: [1]. Xuxl (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Xtreme won the XFL title in that leagues only year of existence. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the research and/or memory Xuxl. MarnetteD|Talk 18:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's memory - I remembered having posted on that previous thread. Xuxl (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An organization that lasts only one full season (such as the WFL) is necessarily going to have only one champion. Just FYI, in the case of the Union Association and the Players' League of 1884 and 1890 respectively, the leagues dissolved but the champion team in each case was brought into one of the established leagues for at least one more season. So in those cases, the teams outlasted their leagues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket smallest winning margin

What is a smaller winning margin in cricket 1 run or 1 wicket? Google didn't give me an answer it showed me a list of matches with a 1 run winning margin. (78.17.116.81 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

A comparison between a win by runs and a win by wickets is meaningless. Obviously, a win by 250 runs is a larger winning margin than a win by one run. By the same token, a win by 10 wickets is more emphatic than a win by one wicket. But you can't compare a win by runs and a win by wickets and say that one or the other of them is necessarily a smaller winning margin. --Viennese Waltz 14:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'd agree with Viennese Waltz, to a watching crowd, a win by 1 run will feel a lot closer, as taking wickets is a scarcer event than scoring runs, so the side that lost by 1 run would feel a lot close to victory than the one that lost by 1 wicket. So much for WP:OR. In the History of Test cricket, and >2,300 matches in nearly 150 years, only 1 match has been won by 1 run, while 13 have been won by one wicket. All of that applies, of course to Test match cricket. It would be similar for first-class cricket. I don't really care about limited overs cricket, but I'd guess the same applies there too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading Wicket correctly, a team winning by a certain number of wickets is always the team batting last. The team batting first would have eventually been retired by 10 wickets going down. If the team batting last scores enough runs to win, then the match is over, and they've won by however many wickets they have not lost yet. Is that correct? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly yes, but to nitpick, "The team batting first would have eventually been retired by 10 wickets going down" is not necessarily true, because teams batting first, second or third (there being two innings each in a first-class match) sometimes declare their innings closed while still having wickets in hand. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if the team batting first closed their innings after, say, 8 wickets, and the team batting last came back and won while losing 9 wickets, how would that be reported? Winning by "negative one" wicket? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would still be reported as winning by one wicket, because that's how many wickets the last-batting team had in hand in their last innings when they exceeded the other team's total. Note that the totals involved are, in first-class cricket, those of both of each teams two innings (if taken).

So for example: Team A declares (closes) their first innings at 400 runs for 2 wickets, Team B scores 250 all-out (for 10, but one never says that), Team A then declares their second innings at 350 for 3 (making their match total 750), Team B reaches 501 for 9 before the final close of play (making their total 751) – Team B wins by one wicket, even though they have lost a total of 19 wickets and Team A lost only 5.

Note also that if Team B had reached a score of only, say, 200 for 9 at close of play on the final day, so that they were 301 runs behind but still had a wicket in hand, the result would be a draw because of that untaken wicket: the risk of later running out of playing time before taking all the opponent's wickets, and thus drawing rather than winning, is (usually) what prompts a team to declare with some of their own wickets still in hand. (If the two match totals were exactly equal, a very rare occurance, the result would be a tie.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious follow-up question to that is why does play have to end at that time? Can't the teams just carry on until either Team B has reached its run target or is all out? For the answer, see playing time (cricket). (It's complicated.) --Viennese Waltz 09:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viennese Waltz because otherwise they'll miss their cruise ship. See Timeless Test. The world record was nine days of play and it was still a draw. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean carrying on beyond the fifth day, I meant carrying on the fifth day until a result is achieved. Besides, I answered my own question, so I'm not sure what your point is. --Viennese Waltz 10:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That effectively happens in One Day matches all the time. It's reported as winning by one wicket, and I have regarded that as an incorrect description since the first time I saw it. We need a better way. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Limited overs is a whole other story. It's a bit like softball games that have a clock on them, e.g. no full inning can start after one hour has passed. The obvious solution for limited overs would be to simply report the score. In baseball, if a team wins in the last of the ninth after 1 out, you could say they won by 2 outs. That isn't done, of course. But it seems like the same general idea. The one thing about winning by X number of wickets is that presumably the runs margin will be narrow. But that doesn't necessarily make it a close match, because it would end once you've scored enough runs to win, right? But if for some reason you were to keep batting until you actually lost all 10 wickets, the final margin could be considerable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A perhaps interesting thing about the way scores are described in limited overs cricket can be part taken from my example. If the team batting second win from the last ball it will be reported as a X wicket win. But it will be the same if they win with over half over their overs remaining. Even if it's a 1 wicket win, I think most of the time most people will agree a victory with over half the overs remaining and a victory from the last ball are quite different in how close they are. In fact, generally a 10 wicket win from the last ball is likely to be seen as closer than a 1 wicket win with over half the overs remaining. That said, it isn't uncommon to report how many balls were remaining in many contexts e.g. [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) In limited overs cricket, without knowing more details I wouldn't say it always applies. To give a specific constructed example, in an ODI if the scores are 299 for the team batting first (however they got there) and 298/9 for the team batting second at over 49.5, both outcomes are reasonably likely, as well as a tie (albeit depending slightly on the specifics). Practically, how close a match feels can probably swing easier in an ODI (and even more so in a T20). For example, if at the start of the 49th over, the 9th and 10th batters (batsmen [3] [4]) are at the crease after 2 wickets from the previous 2 balls, and their team need 25 more runs, their situation seems rather dire. If they manage to get 4 straight sixes then suddenly at 49.4 it looks like they're on the cusp of winning. But if the next ball is the wicket of the batter who scored the 4 straight sixes suddenly at 49.5 we're at the situation I described at the beginning. To be clear, this is not to say you can't have fairly rapid changes in a test match, simply that it's easier to happen in an ODI. Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In limited overs cricket, I think a win by 1 run would be a smaller winning margin than one wicket, as that would be the smallest impact on the +/- figure for the net run rate. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe that's correct. As I discussed above, without more details I'm fairly sure there's no way to know for sure if there is any real difference other than who happened to win and yes this applies to the net run rate. E.g. 1 wicket remaining could mean the team batting first scored 299 in their 50 overs, the team batting scored 300 in their 50. A win by 1 run could mean the team batting first scored 300 in their 50 overs, the team batting second scored 299 in their 50. I believe it would be correct that a win by 1 run will always only have a tiny effect on net run rate whereas a win by 1 wicket could actually make a big difference. (I mean a win by 1 wicket could theoretically be the team batting first scoring 0 runs in their 50 I presume from all bowled out. The team batting second then proceeded to nearly repeat the same losing a wicket a ball until their hero 11th player Chris Martin (cricketer) comes and scores that one run which gets them the win on the 10th ball.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

question about a baseball "fact"

I was reading about Ronald Acuña Jr. of the Atlanta Braves on your site and this is listed.... "On April 25, 2018, the Braves promoted Acuña to the major leagues.[20] He became the youngest player in Major League Baseball upon his promotion,[21]"....

I believe this to be wrong, but trying to wade through your pages and pages of questioning a fact made my head spin (I didn't want to actually edit someone's article, just ask someone to double check, and I'm an educated person, so please don't think I'm stupid. It just seems like a lot of runaround navigating the help pages.)

Anyway, according to the Texas Rangers Trivia Calendar I have, David Clyde was younger than Ronald Acuña, when he made his debut. He was 18 year, 2 months old on June 27, 1973 when he pitched his premier game for that franchise. According to Ronald Acuña's dates, He was 20 years, 4 months old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinBobo (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those "youngest player" factoids in player articles mean "youngest player at that moment". (By the way, Joe Nuxhall was 15.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should probably be amended to say "at that time" or similar to avoid the ambiguity. But OP, please note that it also did not say "of all time" or "in baseball history" or anything of that kind either. Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly clear from the source that they meant merely the youngest currently active major league player. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but the existence of this thread suggests otherwise. Matt Deres (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source actually says, "Promoted by the Atlanta Braves from Triple-A, the youngest player in the majors was put into the starting lineup Wednesday night, batting sixth and playing left field against Cincinnati." Someone tried to paraphrase that and it didn't quite come out right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]