Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2018 August 15
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 14 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | Current desk > |
| 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. |
August 15[edit]
Once-in-a-thousand-year baseball feats[edit]
Major League Baseball has been going on for the last 142 years and we've seen many really rare feats, but there's many more feats that never occurred in history, such as 30-game winning streaks, perfect games for two consecutive games, and a player hitting 100 home runs in a season. Some of the feats are so rare that they happen only once in several hundred years or even tens of thousands of years. Like how rare could a person pitches a perfect game for two consecutive starts or a team pitching a perfect game for two consecutive games. I calculate a team throwing perfect games for two consecutive games may happen somewhere in MLB only once every 20,000 years assuming 30 teams playing 162 games each year; for contrast a team throwing no-hitters for two consecutive games (on back-to-back days or both games of a doubleheader) would happen once every 160 years (which never happened but for how long MLB is around it's getting close). How about a team winning 30 games in a row, which never happened in MLB history (the record is 26 set by New York Giants in 1916). I calculate 30-game win streak would happen once every 900 years, which is practically a once-in-a-thousand-year baseball feat, again assuming 30 teams playing 162 games every year. As for hitting 100 home runs, no came even close (Barry Bonds held the home run record at 73 in 2001). What do you think of those and is there's an article about those super-rare feats that we can only imagine? PlanetStar 01:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not in baseball, but in the sport most Americans know nothing about, cricket, there was a fellow called Don Bradman. His record is the ultimate statistical outlier. Have a look at Batting average#Leading Test batting averages. See the numbers. Bradman is on 99.94. the rest start at 61.87, and go down from there. There's only four more in the 60s. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ice Hockey has a player the equivalent of Don Bradman regarding distance from his peers, statistically. That would be Wayne Gretzky, whose stats are stupid. In hockey, a player gets awarded a "point" for either an assist or a goal. Gretzky has 2,857 points in his career; the next place on the list has 1921. Gretzky had 1,963 assists. Which means even if he never scored a goal in his career he'd still be the career points leader. Gretzky is the ONLY player to score 200 points in a season; he did it 4 times. Other than Bradman and Gretzky, I can't think of a player who so dominated their sport that they are essentially untouchable statistically. --Jayron32 12:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, the guy who makes other sports' best evers look mundane was only 5'8"? Very few top league baseballers are that short. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- That guy would have towered over Willie Keeler, who was also quite the hitter. In cricket, the pathway to success as a batsman is to consistently "hit 'em where they ain't" as Keeler did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- It makes sense though, extreme power isn't needed to score 99.94 runs per out but getting to look at that tricky ball for longer before committing and hitting it where they ain't is. For whatever reasons, 5'8" must be one of the best heights a cricket batsman can have or Sir Don wouldn't be such a statistical freak (they've surely tried 5'10", 5'6" etc. many times and they all failed to hit 99.94) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Floyd Mayweather Jr., known for ain't being where boxers are hitting, is also 5'8". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- It makes sense though, extreme power isn't needed to score 99.94 runs per out but getting to look at that tricky ball for longer before committing and hitting it where they ain't is. For whatever reasons, 5'8" must be one of the best heights a cricket batsman can have or Sir Don wouldn't be such a statistical freak (they've surely tried 5'10", 5'6" etc. many times and they all failed to hit 99.94) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why would we have an article about hypothetical baseball achievements? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- We wouldn't, or at least not as such. Somewhere else on the internet, there could be such a page, and if statistical methods were applied, it might be valid as a page here. It's worth noting that anomalies do exist. I read somewhere once (I forget where) that Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak was so far beyond the range of other hitting streaks as to be highly significant statistically. Some of the other scenarios the OP mentions have to do with a degree of luck. John Vander Meer pitched two consecutive no-hitters, and Ewell Blackwell came close to duplicating that feat. No-hitters are fairly common, compared to perfect games, in part because of circumstances. You can have your best day on the mound you've ever had, but one mistake by a fielder or a questionable call by an umpire can kill your perfect game. In any case, the stats would need to predict the probability of two consecutive no-hitters, which is pretty small, and the probability of either or both of them being perfect games, which is really small, but not zero. As to winning streaks, in sports in which the same players play most of the time (especially football) winning streaks of 30 or more are possible. The problem in baseball is that you have four or five starting pitchers, and the probability of even one of them going on a lengthy winning streak would be countered by the probability that all four or five would be effective for the same lengthy streaks, and that the team's batters can hit well against the opposition consistently no matter who that opposition is, and that's also quite rare. As I recall, when the Indians had their 22-game streak snapped last year, it came because they weren't getting hits. The Giants' anomalous 26-game streak (plus a tie) happened in part because the stronger eastern teams were all playing the weaker western teams. So although the Giants had their huge streak, it didn't help much, because the Dodgers also won a lot of games during that stretch, with only a few losses. As to 100 home runs, first of all it's not that easy to get a home run in the first place. And the more you get, the more the pitchers are going to pitch around you. The great sluggers, from Ruth to McGwire and Bonds, all drew a lot of bases-on-balls, intentional and otherwise. Unlike with guys like Keeler, swatting at low-percentage deliveries just to get on base doesn't bring you many home runs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- A lot of records that look improbable now are because of changing conditions in the way the game is played. For example, in 1980, Rick Langford threw 22 consecutive complete games. It was noted back then as being a highly unusual feat, but it wasn't a record, and nowadays, even pitching 5 consecutive complete games would be a huge deal, as they have become quite rare. So, 100 home runs in a season is unthinkable under today's conditions, but what if these changed? For example, today's tendency of swinging for the fences on every pitch could be pushed to extremes, and other factors favorable to power hitters could also come into play (such a livelier baseball maybe, or a conscious decision to move in fences in order to increase home runs). In such a contest, 100 homers would become plausible. As no one knows how the game will evolve, one can only calculate the likelihood of events based on playing conditions remaining stable - but playing conditions have never remained stable over a long enough run. 1000 years is a long time... Xuxl (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- And we already know that the future of major-league baseball will end in 2042. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- The way things are going, football might come to an end before baseball does; a possibility which would have been unforeseen when that DS9 episode was written. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- A lot of records that look improbable now are because of changing conditions in the way the game is played. For example, in 1980, Rick Langford threw 22 consecutive complete games. It was noted back then as being a highly unusual feat, but it wasn't a record, and nowadays, even pitching 5 consecutive complete games would be a huge deal, as they have become quite rare. So, 100 home runs in a season is unthinkable under today's conditions, but what if these changed? For example, today's tendency of swinging for the fences on every pitch could be pushed to extremes, and other factors favorable to power hitters could also come into play (such a livelier baseball maybe, or a conscious decision to move in fences in order to increase home runs). In such a contest, 100 homers would become plausible. As no one knows how the game will evolve, one can only calculate the likelihood of events based on playing conditions remaining stable - but playing conditions have never remained stable over a long enough run. 1000 years is a long time... Xuxl (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- We wouldn't, or at least not as such. Somewhere else on the internet, there could be such a page, and if statistical methods were applied, it might be valid as a page here. It's worth noting that anomalies do exist. I read somewhere once (I forget where) that Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak was so far beyond the range of other hitting streaks as to be highly significant statistically. Some of the other scenarios the OP mentions have to do with a degree of luck. John Vander Meer pitched two consecutive no-hitters, and Ewell Blackwell came close to duplicating that feat. No-hitters are fairly common, compared to perfect games, in part because of circumstances. You can have your best day on the mound you've ever had, but one mistake by a fielder or a questionable call by an umpire can kill your perfect game. In any case, the stats would need to predict the probability of two consecutive no-hitters, which is pretty small, and the probability of either or both of them being perfect games, which is really small, but not zero. As to winning streaks, in sports in which the same players play most of the time (especially football) winning streaks of 30 or more are possible. The problem in baseball is that you have four or five starting pitchers, and the probability of even one of them going on a lengthy winning streak would be countered by the probability that all four or five would be effective for the same lengthy streaks, and that the team's batters can hit well against the opposition consistently no matter who that opposition is, and that's also quite rare. As I recall, when the Indians had their 22-game streak snapped last year, it came because they weren't getting hits. The Giants' anomalous 26-game streak (plus a tie) happened in part because the stronger eastern teams were all playing the weaker western teams. So although the Giants had their huge streak, it didn't help much, because the Dodgers also won a lot of games during that stretch, with only a few losses. As to 100 home runs, first of all it's not that easy to get a home run in the first place. And the more you get, the more the pitchers are going to pitch around you. The great sluggers, from Ruth to McGwire and Bonds, all drew a lot of bases-on-balls, intentional and otherwise. Unlike with guys like Keeler, swatting at low-percentage deliveries just to get on base doesn't bring you many home runs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- The livelier ball is a good point. That was possibly the most significant change in the game, which Ruth, Hornsby and others exploited and it changed the nature of the game. Other changes have also been significant, such as increasing the pitching distance in 1893, which was expressly done to increase the offense. So anything is possible in future. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a good thing they don't pitch from 50 feet anymore, modern pitchers would decimate modern hitters. Why did lowering the mound only 5 inches raise ERAs so much by the way? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- That was done to increase the batting, and it worked. The Dodgers, in particular, used to have a very high mound, and when Sandy Koufax's fast ball would come barreling downhill it was literally unhittable oftentimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- The grammar ump has tossed you out of the ref. desk for one game for your abuse of the word "literally". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I mean literally. As in, a guy who set strikeout records and pitched four no-hitters including a perfect game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Stop figuratively shoving dirt on my grammatical shoes and/or home plate. You literally don't know the meaning of "literally". Koufax's pitches weren't literally unhittable. Sandy Koufax's perfect game says there were popups and foul balls. To literally be unhittable, the ball would have to be surrounded by an impenetrable force field or something. Now hit the showers. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, Jocko. At the very least, Ernie found him literally unhittable. And others who made contact were retired. So pretty much nobody got good wood on it. The other remarkable thing about that game is that Bob Hendley only allowed one hit, a hit which didn't even figure in the scoring. Two complete game no-hitters in the same game has never happened in the entire history of MLB. But it could happen tomorrow. That's part of the beauty of the game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Even Baseball Bugs wasn't unhittable, as I'm sure you were aware. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, Jocko. At the very least, Ernie found him literally unhittable. And others who made contact were retired. So pretty much nobody got good wood on it. The other remarkable thing about that game is that Bob Hendley only allowed one hit, a hit which didn't even figure in the scoring. Two complete game no-hitters in the same game has never happened in the entire history of MLB. But it could happen tomorrow. That's part of the beauty of the game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Stop figuratively shoving dirt on my grammatical shoes and/or home plate. You literally don't know the meaning of "literally". Koufax's pitches weren't literally unhittable. Sandy Koufax's perfect game says there were popups and foul balls. To literally be unhittable, the ball would have to be surrounded by an impenetrable force field or something. Now hit the showers. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I mean literally. As in, a guy who set strikeout records and pitched four no-hitters including a perfect game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- The grammar ump has tossed you out of the ref. desk for one game for your abuse of the word "literally". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- That was done to increase the batting, and it worked. The Dodgers, in particular, used to have a very high mound, and when Sandy Koufax's fast ball would come barreling downhill it was literally unhittable oftentimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a good thing they don't pitch from 50 feet anymore, modern pitchers would decimate modern hitters. Why did lowering the mound only 5 inches raise ERAs so much by the way? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- The livelier ball is a good point. That was possibly the most significant change in the game, which Ruth, Hornsby and others exploited and it changed the nature of the game. Other changes have also been significant, such as increasing the pitching distance in 1893, which was expressly done to increase the offense. So anything is possible in future. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Most of the pitching records are untouchable because the approach to pitching has changed. Some of the batting records and appearance records are achievable, while some are not, again due to changes in the game. Some records are just a matter of chance. For example, there are not very many unassisted triple plays in MLB history, and that's not because it's difficult to accomplish, it's just that the circumstance have to be just right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Another point to ponder is the pitcher himself. Nolan Ryan began every game trying to pitch a no-hitter. He succeeded seven times. But he was a power pitcher, so maybe that's not surprising. Much more surprising is the case of the World Series perfect game. Considering Don Larsen's mediocre career record, if someone were asked who would have a reasonably high probability of pitching a perfect game in the Series, it's not likely Don Larsen would be very high on the list. Yet he not only did it, he's the only one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
There are about 433,000 team-games (two team-games per MLB game) played in MLB history, about 300 no-hitters and 23 perfect games. Divide 433,000 by 300 and we get one no-hitter for every 1440 team-games. Divide 433,000 by 23 and we get about one perfect game for every 18,800 team-games. Now what's the probability of a team pitching no-hitter for two consecutive games, three consecutive games, and perfect games for two consecutive games? Well, let's do the math. The probability of any particular team throwing two no-hitters in a row happening is one for every 1440^2 team-games, that's one for every 2,073,600 team-games. That would happen once every 426 years somewhere in MLB (which would most likely happen just once in the modern era (since about 1600)), revising from 160 years mentioned above, assuming all 30 teams playing 162 games every year. Now the probability of a team throwing perfect games for two consecutive games. It would only happen once every 72,720 years. Now a team throwing no-hitter for three consecutive games, that would only happen once every 614,000 years. To put that in perspective, since the advent of modern humans, there's only a 25% probability that three consecutive no-hitters accomplished in the record books! As for a pitcher accomplishing those feats, it would be little harder to calculate because were dealing with many pitchers, but the probability of any particular pitcher accomplishing the feat could be the same as for the team. What do you think, Baseball Bugs? PlanetStar 03:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Based on pure chance, maybe. But consider pitchers who have thrown multiple no-hitters. What is the probability of two of them happening to be back-to-back? Then there's what could be called the X-factor: What's the probability of the second no-hitter happening in a time when night games were still rare and it was the first night game for the team that lost the no-hitter? Because that's what happened in Vander Meer's second consecutive no-hitter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but you two are arguing completely independent points; PlanetStar is calculating the odds, and at 433,000 samples, those odds are going to have some strong statistical significance. It is not deterministic, but its going to be pretty damn good; at least to a Fermi approximation, which means that we expect that reality will match prediction to about the same number of digits. Since the two no-hitter scenario should happen only once every 426 years, and it happened once in 160 years, those numbers have the same number of digits, so from a Fermi-approximation perspective, his calculation is dead on. The deal with that is, all of the "x-factor" issue you are discussing Bugs, that is hidden variables that would have made Vander Meer's particular two-consecutive-no-hit feat likely to happen to Vander Meer are already in PlanetStars calculations. It isn't saying who it will happen to, only that all of the hidden variables have already been taken into account in the odds calculations; those variables are part of the 433,000 samples he's taken. He doesn't know what they are, but he doesn't have to. So yeah, the hidden variables that Bugs mentioned went into making it Vander Meer that was the one who set the feat, but PlanetStar's calculation isn't about that, just that it is not unlikely that someone would have done it once. Which someone did. Once. The other events noted are FAR more unlikely, and no one has done those. --Jayron32 15:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- The probability of those happen based on the odds above are adjusted to average pitchers. How good the pitchers are shall be taken into account. The average pitcher may throw back-to-back no-hitters once every 426 years, but really good or best pitchers can throw back-to-back no-hitters something like once every 160 years (there's that X-factor!), which in MLB history no really good pitcher haven't done that (Vander Meer who accomplished that wasn't a very good pitcher). Due to the X-factors involved, the odds of those happening could be closer to my first estimate at the top of this section. The active pitchers who are most likely to throw two consecutive no-hitters or perfect games are Max Scherzer, Clayton Kershaw, Chris Sale, and Justin Verlander, though they are all unlikely to accomplish it in their careers based on statistical improbabilities. Speaking of X-factor, talk about winning streaks. The probability of a 20-game winning streak is one in 2^20 = 1,048,576 team-games or on average once every 216 years, and there are only 433,000 team-games played in history, which means it is most likely that 20-game winning streak didn't occur yet, yet such a streak occurred 7 times in MLB history. So there's must've been X-factors, like team pitching real well and hitting real well, as well as winning every close game during the streak {look at how the Cleveland Indians have done it last year}. So given there are 433,000 games played with 7 20-game win streaks, it would give it the actual probability of 1 in 62,000, that's 17 times higher than the raw probability. Using raw probability, a 30-game win streak would happen once every 2^30 = 1,073,741,824 team-games or once every 220,000 years. But with X-factors involved including being the best team that pitches really great and with at very least little offense, the probability of a 30-gamer would be closer to the odd given in my first comment, which is once in a thousand years rather than once in hundreds of thousands of years. PlanetStar 23:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but you two are arguing completely independent points; PlanetStar is calculating the odds, and at 433,000 samples, those odds are going to have some strong statistical significance. It is not deterministic, but its going to be pretty damn good; at least to a Fermi approximation, which means that we expect that reality will match prediction to about the same number of digits. Since the two no-hitter scenario should happen only once every 426 years, and it happened once in 160 years, those numbers have the same number of digits, so from a Fermi-approximation perspective, his calculation is dead on. The deal with that is, all of the "x-factor" issue you are discussing Bugs, that is hidden variables that would have made Vander Meer's particular two-consecutive-no-hit feat likely to happen to Vander Meer are already in PlanetStars calculations. It isn't saying who it will happen to, only that all of the hidden variables have already been taken into account in the odds calculations; those variables are part of the 433,000 samples he's taken. He doesn't know what they are, but he doesn't have to. So yeah, the hidden variables that Bugs mentioned went into making it Vander Meer that was the one who set the feat, but PlanetStar's calculation isn't about that, just that it is not unlikely that someone would have done it once. Which someone did. Once. The other events noted are FAR more unlikely, and no one has done those. --Jayron32 15:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
What's the point of the Ineligible receiver downfield rule, i.e. what's the problem of allowing an ineligible receiver to be downfield? Is it a concern that the offense could trick the defense into covering ineligible receivers and thus benefit unfairly by eligible ones becoming open? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- If everyone on offense were eligible, it would be chaos. Bearing in mind that once a forward pass is touched, everyone becomes eligible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Understood, and agreed, but why prohibit the ineligible ones from going downfield? Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- So they won't be trying to catch the pass. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Understood, and agreed, but why prohibit the ineligible ones from going downfield? Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Here's a more detailed explanation of the whole thing.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- A great source (if you can find it; it's a hard book to come across) regarding the evolution of American Football rules is David M. Nelson's book The Anatomy of a Game: Football, the Rules, and the Men Who Made the Game. Nelson was the longest-serving director of the NCAA Rules Committee, longer even than Walter Camp who basically invented the game and created that body. He wrote several books on football rules, theory, and history but that is his magnum opus, and as comprehensive a work on the subject as you'll get. I don't own a copy, but have read it and used it extensively when writing the Wikipedia article History of American Football. He addresses the history of eligible receivers, which goes part-and-parcel with the evolution of the forward pass. I'm working from memory here, as I don't have a copy in front of me, but basically the "ineligible receiver downfield" rule evolved out of two major changes to the game after 1905. In 1905, injuries were so bad that Theodore Roosevelt threatened to shut down the game unless major changes were made to rules. Some of those changes included 1) Rules to limit the use of the "flying wedge" formation, to prevent injuries to players. This limited the ability of members of the offensive line to go downfield before the ball crossed the line of scrimmage; prior to these rules mass running formations were highly dangerous. 2) The establishment of the forward pass as a means to move the ball downfield; from the beginning of the legal forward pass, the rules have been restrictive over who could catch the ball and where on the field they could catch it. During the first few decades of its use, the rules on eligible receivers were actually more restrictive, but as the game focus has shifted from the run to the pass over time, rules "freeing up" who can catch the ball, where, and what can happen to them have shifted to favor the offense over the defense and make it easier for them. Still, the rules have been in the game for over a century, and exist to a) maintain balance between offense and defense (if every offensive player could catch a pass downfield, the game would be impossible to defend, so some players are prevented from doing so) and b) to protect players from injury (allowing interior linemen to go far downfield means more high-speed, high-impact open field hits. This was the major problem that led to the sweeping changes to the game after 1905). I hope that helps. --Jayron32 11:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- American football evolved from Rugby (don't ask me which one). If forward passing was allowed in Rugby (by throwing, not just kicking), the result could be pretty close to what the OP is asking about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- At the time when it split off from rugby, there was only one version. Rugby league split off from Rugby union in 1895, and really didn't start to diverge in terms of rules and gameplay for a few years after that. While the first American football game, the 1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game, more resembled association football rules (with some differences), however by 1875 the Americans had adopted the rugby game; by 1881 they had started to develop the line of scrimmage rules that made American football unique; that came some 14 years before the League-Union split. --Jayron32 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- So that's why there's no University of New Jersey or NJU, it's Princeton! (and of course New York State State is SUNY) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sort of. Rutgers is officially the State University of New Jersey. Princeton was at the time known as the College of New Jersey, but it was always a private institution. This is similar in status to the University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania State University. There are currently a few state schools with New Jersey in the name, including The College of New Jersey (formerly Trenton State University) and the New Jersey Institute of Technology. --Jayron32 11:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- So that's why there's no University of New Jersey or NJU, it's Princeton! (and of course New York State State is SUNY) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- At the time when it split off from rugby, there was only one version. Rugby league split off from Rugby union in 1895, and really didn't start to diverge in terms of rules and gameplay for a few years after that. While the first American football game, the 1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game, more resembled association football rules (with some differences), however by 1875 the Americans had adopted the rugby game; by 1881 they had started to develop the line of scrimmage rules that made American football unique; that came some 14 years before the League-Union split. --Jayron32 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Football Bugs and Jayron32. It never occurred to me that there would be a safety aspect to any of this (I'm not surprised); I just assumed that there was a parity/fairness issue, since obviously there's no restriction on ineligible receivers being behind the line or going downfield with a rusher. The anatomy of a game looks easy to get (it's held by a university near me, and we have a reciprocal-borrowing agreement with them), so if I remember I'll get it and expand the Ineligible receiver downfield article. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- That would be excellent. :) One thing about any sport is the tinkering that's done to try and have some balance between offense and defense. Hence the rules about offsides in many of the sports where there's a goal at each end of the playing surface. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)