[OT] What Is the Rarest Single-Game Feat in Sports?

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
The word "nationally" eliminates the 1989 football game.  You can be sure that was regional coverage.[/q]

There was no regional coverage in 1989.  ESPN was ESPN and they had an Ivy Football Game of the Week.  In 1988 they showed the Harvard-Yale game while Cornell was beating Penn to force them to share the Ivy title.  The following year the game at Franklin Field was on Thanksgiving in part so it could get on the TV schedule.

[jeh25]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Guys have many flaws. But when Duke leads Carolina by one with :06 to play (actually, today that would be :06.3) and the Tarheels are shooting a one-and-one, no guy ever perches on the arm of the coach, leans over, looks in your face, and says, "Penny for your thoughts." [/q]

My wife would probably say "What the hell is wrong you foo'...."

::banana::

[RichH]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

 unassisted triple play[/q]
Thank you, Adam.  Can't believe it took that long to get to my favorite baseball rarity.

A close 2nd is the bases-loaded intentional walk.  That's obviously less skill and luck than any other feat, as it's a pre-determined strategic event.  But think about it...it's fascinating (to me) to come up with the scenario where one team would be willing to give up a free run.  Certainly, hitters have been "pitched around" in bases-loaded situations, but an actual IBB with the bases loaded is a rare event.  It's only known to have happened 4 times in history: 1901, 1928, 1944, and 1998.  The game description of each is listed at the very bottom of this page:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_wk1.shtml

I can't believe I was out-of-town for this thread, seeing how this topic is right in my wheelhouse.  I've been banging my head against the desk while reading how many factual errors (and corrections) have been made here.  Seriously, it's kind of funny reading this entire thread chronologically.

I was in attendance at the game Fernando Tatis hit 2 Grand Slams in the same inning at Dodger Stadium on 4/23/99.  It's the only time that has happened.  I was cheering for the 2 Grand Slams in the same inning by teammates when McGwire came up with them loaded and 1 out, but he flew out to shallow RF, setting the stage for Tatis.  When the 2nd slam went out, only one other person in my section seemed to realize the historical significance.  We practically danced a jig in the aisle while Dodger fans leered at us from their various cell-phone conversations.  I had won tickets to that game from the local sports-radio station since it was McGwire's first game at Dodger Stadium since the '88 World Series.  Thanks Vic The Brick, and thanks Chan Ho.  
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/boxscore/04231999.shtml

http://www.baseball-almanac.com is a wonderful resource for various baseball oddities and facts.

[dss28]

Preface:  I haven't read ALL of this thread, so I don't know if it's been mentioned, but...

I'd think that a pitcher throwing only 81 pitches across 9 innings would be pretty rare...

Actually, has anyone ever done that?  Truly a *perfect* game?  ...is it even possible?

[Tom Pasniewski 98]

It has been done and done a number of times and the record is much lower than 81....it's 58.  The Baseball Almanac, as Rich mentioned, is an excellent source for such statistics and here is a description of that game:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/boxscore/08101944.shtml

[RichH]

[Q]dss28 Wrote:

Actually, has anyone ever done that?  Truly a *perfect* game?  ...is it even possible?[/q]
While technically possible, I think the only place that type of performance will ever exist is in really bad hollywood movies.  I mean really bad.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111094/

[cornelldavy]

Here's one that might never be approached again...on May 12, 1952, Pirates farmhand Ron Necciai struck out 27 batters in a 9-inning game.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/comment/saraceno/2002-05-13-saraceno.htm

[Greg Berge]

Then again, sometimes utterly impossible things do happen: http://www.olympic.org/uk/athletes/heroes/bio_uk.asp?PAR_I_ID=18108

[billhoward]

Syracuse making the final four of an NCAA tournament (lacrosse) 22 years in a row is incredible. That's positively Wooden-esque. Especially when you think that in the early 1970s Cornell was pounding Syracuse by scores of 21-3. (I believe the NC women's soccer team has matched that mark of consecutive final fours.)

[Robb]

Yeah, but UNC women's soccer also won 16 championships in those 22 years.  Why is there so little parity in women's sports (see UNC soccer, UConn/UT basketball, UMinn/UMD in hockey, etc)?

[Rosey]

[Q]Robb Wrote:

 Yeah, but UNC women's soccer also won 16 championships in those 22 years.  Why is there so little parity in women's sports (see UNC soccer, UConn/UT basketball, UMinn/UMD in hockey, etc)?[/q]

Probably because the talent pool is much smaller, so when one school begins to dominate, the best players all want to play there, which perpetuates the cycle.

Cheers,
Kyle

::banana::

[billhoward]

Women's sports have existed on the cusp of big time only since the early 1970s, in no small part because of Title IX, a law I thought was dumb at the time and now realize was in fact a lever to drag us into realizing that a lot of women would like the opportunity to play sports more seriously than in the past. (Some dumb things happened such as colleges killing men's wrestling in order to have parity with the number of women's sports.)

As women's sports grows, the domination of a UNC is probably going to be less likely.

As all sports grow, dynasties will be less likely. What are the odds John Wooden now could win 7 consecutive NCAA basketball titles and 10 in 12 years? Look at how the D1 men's lacrosse world has grown: UMass, Syracuse (a nobody 30 years ago), Georgetown, Hobart (not D1), etcetera.

All of which makes the Syracuse feat all the more amazing. I suppose Duke's record of making a lot of sweet sixteens and final fours in basketball, just not in a row, could be the most impressive team feat for consistency if not consecutive consistency.

[CUlater 89]

I don't think the UMinn/UMD hockey example is appropo since up until those programs really got started, it was UNH and Providence that dominated women's hockey and then Harvard and to a lesser extent Dartmouth.

[Robb]

Yeah, but if 2 teams had won the last 5 MEN'S hockey championships, I think there would be a lot of head scratching.  ->  ::screwy::

[David Harding]

[Q]Robb Wrote:

 Yeah, but UNC women's soccer also won 16 championships in those 22 years.  Why is there so little parity in women's sports (see UNC soccer, UConn/UT basketball, UMinn/UMD in hockey, etc)?[/q]

How about Cornell women's polo.  Five straight national championships!