> I'd like to add that those teams could have always been playing equally-well. Depending on how you count things, the Yankees were founded in either 1901 or 1

> I'd like to add that those teams could have always been playing equally-well. Depending on how you count things, the Yankees were founded in either 1901 or 1903, while the Expos were created in the 1968 baseball expansion and started playing in 1969. Without reseting the score for every game, there is simply no way for the Expos (now called the Washington Nationals) to ever have equality with the Yankees. (well, ok, it is possible but is just plain never going to happen). At the end of the last (American) football season, the Green Bay Packers beat the Chicago Bears, and in doing so passed the Bears for the most all-time wins in professional (American) football, which is the first time ever that the Bears did not have the most all-time wins. The Bears are one of the founding teams, and the Packers joined the league in the second season. If the Bears and Packers both won 0 games for 4 straight years, the New York Giants would catch up with both of them. But only if they won all 16 games every year. Then again, the Giants joined the league in its 5th year. Is there any reasonable situation in which a non-first-decade team manages to catch up? No: it would take a generation of spectacularly bad performance by all the old clubs while at the same time a newer club needs to be spectacularly good the entire time! That original analogy was so good :)