BASEBALL 9/26

[EZB]

So, i bet on baseball a lot and i love reading baseball posts on this site. Does anyone have any tips on tonights game. I think the boston is a great bet tonight with schilling going. Also, the Angels got semi-embareassed alst night losing to tampa bay by 4 with colon starting the game for the angels. Does anyone think that the angels are a great bet tonight, coming off 8 wins in a row after last night and probaby looking to give it back to the D-rays. I would love to hear opnions on this or other baseball games tonight.

Thanks

[whipsaw]

Definitely don't like betting the Sox at -200 here -- tons of value for the Birds. Toronto has played the BoSox tough all year, and Schilling hasn't been good enough to command a line anywhere close to -200. If you're going to bet on the Sox, might as well give the -1.5 runs and take better odds -- if they win they will likely crush Toronto.

The second one is a closer call, and I personally wouldn't bet either side. Lackey has gotten roughed up by Oakland a couple of times, and Blanton hasn't been great either. Perhaps the over?

[EZB]

Whip

Thanks, any other suggestions for tonights games, id love to hear them.

EZB

[Bill C]

Shilling has been pretty inconsistent, though I'll admit his last outing was pretty good. However I don't believe he's nearly the same pitcher he was a year ago, and even if he was, there's no way I'm laying -208 (Pinnacle) on him under any circumstances.

I feel like Toronto (Bush, +190) is a pretty good value at the price. Is it a cinch? Absolutely NOT! Most likely winner? Maybe not. But you are being paid, and that's the trick with betting baseball, or anything else. You need an idea of "VALUE", as in "what's this proposition really worth?" And then you compare that estimate of yours with what's being offered.

In this case (and you may not agree with me on my analysis, but it's the basis of MY bet here) I think Bush, at his best, is about the equal of Schilling at his current best. And I think Bush is ready to deliver his best. So since the Sox are home, I'll start off by making it Sox -115. Then I'll add the incentive the Sox have to win and stay alive, and I'll add another 15 cents for that, and maybe a dime for slightly better hitting in Boston. So I come up with Sox -140 (Lets call it Birds +130). Theoretically at that offered price you can find no bet, and each side looks about equally attractive.

But I got it at +190, an "edge" of 60 cents. Now somebody (hello, Craig R) is going to knock my line on this, and that's OK. It is consistent with the way I make lines in general, and the way I bet them, in general. And that way is profitable for me over the long pull. And even if you cut my "edge" in half to 30 cents, it's still a square price.

Very often, when "big name" pitchers are named, the line reflects respect for the prior ability and form of the pitcher. And the line is not a handicapping forecast, it's an attempt by the line maker to project how he thinks the public will bet the game, and give the books a chance to split the action on the game. I believe that's the case here.

Can Schilling now turn around and make me look like a moron by going 8 innings of say a 3-hitter? Sure. It happens. But the idea is that OVER TIME, I am taking the best of it and my edge will get me the money. And I'm happy with that.

bc /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
So since the Sox are home, I'll start off by making it Sox -115.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, since I have argued against the "other side" of this, but I think giving Boston a 3.5% edge for playing at home is pretty conservative. The league average is higher than that and Boston's HFA has been closer to 7.5% the last 3 years.

I also find it hard to believe that your analysis *completely* ignores offense. This would be okay if you compared Bush to the typical TOR starter and Schilling to the typical BOS starter - but you didn't. I think Schilling gains quite a bit if you do that comparison.

Edited because my 5th grade teacher would have me hanged for the run on sentence if she ever read this.

[Bill C]

[quoteI also find it hard to believe that your analysis *completely* ignores offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said: "maybe a dime for slightly better hitting in Boston"

Best regards to your fifth grade teacher. Was that recent? /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

bc

[DougOzzzz]

okay, misread. But "slightly better hitting"? C'mon.

It was too long ago.

[mrbaseball]

Nice writeup and explanation of value. I like Toronto here too. I see real nice edge here on the Jays as Schilling (and that crappy pen) get waaaaaaaaaaay too much respect. Johnson and Yanks get a bit "overbet" today as well.

Typical thinking in the final week with "live" teams is that they can't lose. Because they want to and need to win so bad the public figures they will win when in reality a tight team in a must win situation facing a loosey goosey team has a significant hurdle to overcome and the outcome is nowhere near a done deal.

In addition to these two I like fading the other must win (Phillies) as well. This line is completely whacked and I believe the "wrong" side is favored. Seo has been spectacular. In similar sized samples Seo has held Phillies current lineup to a .705 OPS while Myers has been touched for a .912 OPS versus the current Mets roster. I think the Mets offer tremendous value tonight.

[Bill C]

Thanks Mr B.
I'm also on Seo, and took a little piece of Washington (Carrasco) vs Florida, as well, mostly as a bet against a crumbling Florida team.

bc

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
This would be okay if you compared Bush to the typical TOR starter and Schilling to the typical BOS starter - but you didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an idiot. You compare starter's to their teammates if you start out with overall team ratings (including offense, defense, pitching). You compare starters to the rest of the league if you separate offense and pitching/defense from the start. Just wanted to correct my error.

Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how you could possibly evaluate the Sox offensive advantage at 10 cents. This number seems WAY off.

[heropretend]

given the time of the year, i'll chalk it up or pass. today im a dirty white blackboard. go bosox!

[JTrout]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to these two I like fading the other must win (Phillies) as well. This line is completely whacked and I believe the "wrong" side is favored.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sweating this one with you! Big rally in top of 8th.
5-5, two on, no outs.....

[JTrout]

6-5 Mets.
thank you, mrbaseball.

[Bill C]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope you brought your lunch.

What I do is what I do. It works for me. I feel no obligation to explain anything to you.

bc

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope you brought your lunch.

What I do is what I do. It works for me. I feel no obligation to explain anything to you.

bc

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine.

No one here can admit they are wrong. It is just frustrating.

Any measure of offense, park adjusted, opponent adjusted, whatever, would show you that the Red Sox offense is VASTLY superior to the Blue Jays offense. I point this out, and your response is "I don't have to respond to you." Not, "Okay, I made a mistake in my analysis."

Bottom line is judging the Sox offense as 10 cents better than the Jays was a HUGE error. I mean, around a 40 cent error or so. That's enough to turn a profitable bet into a loser most the time.

So, fine, just ignore me.

If this works for you, that's all that matters. I highly doubt making extremely inaccurate evaluations works for anyone, though.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
No one here can admit they are wrong. It is just frustrating.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this includes you? We all look at things a bit differently. Doesn't make it right and doesn't make it wrong. If you are losing $$$ day after day you will soon figure out you may be doing something wrong, if not you may just be on to something!

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is judging the Sox offense as 10 cents better than the Jays was a HUGE error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge? Factoring nothing else but offense I have the Red Sox with a 12 cent advantage over the Jays. 10 cents is a solid ballpark estimate in my view.

[ QUOTE ]
around a 40 cent error or so

[/ QUOTE ]

40 cents is HUGE no way they have 40 cents advantage over anyone just in offense. How you come up with 40 cents? Heres my most simplistic method. Tor scores 4.61 per game and Bos scores 5.61 per game so together they score 10.22 per game. 5.61/10.22=54.8% which is aout 20 cents. Of course there is a lot of other stuff I put into it but just on the surface 20 cents looks fair and doubling it to 40 cents seems ludicrous. And this 20 cents assumes 100% weighting of offense with no other factors.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one here can admit they are wrong. It is just frustrating.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this includes you? We all look at things a bit differently. Doesn't make it right and doesn't make it wrong. If you are losing $$$ day after day you will soon figure out you may be doing something wrong, if not you may just be on to something!


[/ QUOTE ]
I am willing to admit I am wrong when I am wrong. I have done so several times at twoplustwo. Don't feel like looking up previous posts.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is judging the Sox offense as 10 cents better than the Jays was a HUGE error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge? Factoring nothing else but offense I have the Red Sox with a 12 cent advantage over the Jays. 10 cents is a solid ballpark estimate in my view.


[/ QUOTE ]
12 cents is a terrible estimate as well.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
around a 40 cent error or so

[/ QUOTE ]

40 cents is HUGE no way they have 40 cents advantage over anyone just in offense. How you come up with 40 cents? Heres my most simplistic method. Tor scores 4.61 per game and Bos scores 5.61 per game so together they score 10.22 per game. 5.61/10.22=54.8% which is aout 20 cents. Of course there is a lot of other stuff I put into it but just on the surface 20 cents looks fair and doubling it to 40 cents seems ludicrous. And this 20 cents assumes 100% weighting of offense with no other factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't do the math myself - 40 cents was a rough guess, but it is much closer to accurate than 12 cents.

However, your math is severely flawed. 5.61/10.22 does equal 54.8%, which is 20 cents (still a very BIG difference from the 10 cents, or even 12 cents - enough to turn a long term winner into a loser).

However, wins and losses aren't proportional to RS and RA. They are proportional to the SQUARE of RS and RA (roughly). In other words, the WPCT for offense alone would be:

RS^2/ (RS^2+RA^2). Plugging in your very own numbers, you get a WPCT of 59.6%. That's almost 50 cents. Huge, huge difference.

It's not park adjusted or anything, which works slightly in Toronto's (Bos PF is 1041, Tor's is 1026 - both good for offense but Fenway is better) favor. However, Boston as a team has an Eqa of .273, and Toronto has an Eqa of .249. These are park adjusted, and Boston's offense projects to about .98 runs per game more than Toronto's at a neutral park.

Seriously, if you think the difference is only 12 cents, why the heck is Toronto not leading Boston in the standings? They have vastly superior pitching.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
if you think the difference is only 12 cents, why the heck is Toronto not leading Boston in the standings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually ... Bos has won 92 games and Tor has won 76 game which is 168 games so 92/168=54.7% or about that 20 cents we already discussed. So the rpg has pretty good correlation to wins. Or it's a fluke? I don't know for sure.

But this was just a simplistic example. I have the difference in offence greater than 12 cents on its own. But when weighted with all of the stuff I look at offense came out to having a 12 cent impact.

This has been a fantastic season for me so I don't really think I am making grievous errors. If so I've had a lucky run for the past few years!

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you think the difference is only 12 cents, why the heck is Toronto not leading Boston in the standings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually ... Bos has won 92 games and Tor has won 76 game which is 168 games so 92/168=54.7% or about that 20 cents we already discussed. So the rpg has pretty good correlation to wins. Or it's a fluke? I don't know for sure.

But this was just a simplistic example. I have the difference in offence greater than 12 cents on its own. But when weighted with all of the stuff I look at offense came out to having a 12 cent impact.

This has been a fantastic season for me so I don't really think I am making grievous errors. If so I've had a lucky run for the past few years!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Huge? Factoring nothing else but offense I have the Red Sox with a 12 cent advantage over the Jays. 10 cents is a solid ballpark estimate in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you doing here? We were talking about offense alone, I proved your analysis way off, and then you come and bring up overall team quality. Your statements contradict.

Well, I think the overall team record has A LOT to do with the fact that Boston has allowed 94 more runs than the Blue Jays, don't you think?

You can ignore offense and instead focus on overall team ratings. IF you choose to do this, you can't look at the pitcher matchup in the same way. You HAVE to compare the pitcher's to their respective teammates.

Since Toronto's starting pitching has been superior to Boston's, that works in Schilling's favor. It's not Schilling vs. Bush, it's Schilling vs. Boston's average starter against Bush vs. Toronto's average starter.

Now, the original analysis did not do this, and thus it was flawed. You can look at pitcher vs. pitcher matchup and ignore teammates - but then you have to correctly account for all other individual factors (bullpen, offense, etc.). And 10 cents was an atrocious estimate as to how much better the Boston offense is than Toronto's.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
You can look at pitcher vs. pitcher matchup and ignore teammates - but then you have to correctly account for all other individual factors (bullpen, offense, etc.). And 10 cents was an atrocious estimate as to how much better the Boston offense is than Toronto's.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we once again (as always!) have some massive miscommunications going on and are basically comparing apples and oranges. I look at all sorts of things. When weighted offense for this game came out to 12 cents of impact for all of the stuff I look at. Maybe it's too low? The formulas I use have worked well enough for my purposes.

You seem to always try to tear apart any analysis someone puts up here yet you almost never offer any analysis of your own. It's fun throwing rocks at windows but it doesn't really accomplish much. None of us ever go into a whole lot of depth but at least some of us try to explain our plays. I'd be real interested in seeing how you come up with a line? You obviously have a much better grasp of the statistics and mathematics than I do but I'm not so sure you have any kind of clue what to do with it?

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine.

No one here can admit they are wrong. It is just frustrating.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you care if people admit that they are wrong. Most records or plays on here speak for themselves. We don't need somebody placing a 3 team parlay to admit they are wrong for us to know they are wrong. Or people that bet a line at a worse number than they could have gotten to admit they are wrong. In 6 week the SB Forum will have less posts than it did at the beginning of the season. Why? Because most people on here are wrong.

craig

p.s. I am not mentioning people being wrong at anybody in particular.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can look at pitcher vs. pitcher matchup and ignore teammates - but then you have to correctly account for all other individual factors (bullpen, offense, etc.). And 10 cents was an atrocious estimate as to how much better the Boston offense is than Toronto's.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we once again (as always!) have some massive miscommunications going on and are basically comparing apples and oranges. I look at all sorts of things. When weighted offense for this game came out to 12 cents of impact for all of the stuff I look at. Maybe it's too low? The formulas I use have worked well enough for my purposes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was commenting on the poor evaluation of the Red Sox offense against the Blue Jays offense. FWIW I would evaluate the Red Sox as a team as about 65 percentage points better than the Blue Jays. This is actually smaller than the difference in winning percentage of the two teams (102 points), and corresponds to about a 30 cent edge starting at even. I'm not sure how you got the 2+ percent edge based on the teams W-L records.
[ QUOTE ]

You seem to always try to tear apart any analysis someone puts up here yet you almost never offer any analysis of your own. It's fun throwing rocks at windows but it doesn't really accomplish much. None of us ever go into a whole lot of depth but at least some of us try to explain our plays. I'd be real interested in seeing how you come up with a line? You obviously have a much better grasp of the statistics and mathematics than I do but I'm not so sure you have any kind of clue what to do with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't made the effort to set up some sort of system of capping baseball games yet. It is a ton of work, and I don't have the time or effort.

My approach as I described before would be simple, though. Research what best correlates to future success, and project each players performance for the next game.

If/when I do actually come up with anything, I don't see any reason I should give away my picks for free, though. It is generous of everyone here to offer their analysis for free. I think I am doing others a favor as well by pointing out when the analysis is obviously flawed.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason I should give away my picks for free, though. It is generous of everyone here to offer their analysis for free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad. I like talking about baseball and handicapping baseball and I'm always looking for new ideas, methods and approaches. Obviouisly I don't list all my picks or analysis but when someone does break down a game I like to add my 2 cents and get involved in the discussion.

I think the whole idea of 2+2 is sharing. I have gained invaluable poker knowledge from the strategy forums here. I try to share some of my baseball approaches yet there seems to be a lot of both resistance and miscommunication in those efforts.

[ QUOTE ]
My approach as I described before would be simple, though. Research what best correlates to future success, and project each players performance for the next game.


[/ QUOTE ]

My approach is simple too. Just sort of opposite of yours which may be responsible for the friction. You take what correlates to future success and I take what caused past results. The way I see it all of the stats that caused past results are the stats that caused past results so those stats should remain consistent with future results. There is a lot of "slop" in baseball and a lot of intangibles and a pretty level playing field with just a few outliers. This means (to bring up a past example) I see typical differences between say a D. Wells and an A. Small as being insignificant and a coinflip for the most part. I know from experience that my approach works yet I am constantly trying to tweak it.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I am doing others a favor as well by pointing out when the analysis is obviously flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true if taken in context. If take out of context as is often the case I'm not so sure?

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
I try to share some of my baseball approaches yet there seems to be a lot of both resistance and miscommunication in those efforts.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't read them as often as I should (I tend not to bet much on US sports until a few weeks before the footaball season starts), but when I do I always find your posts well thought out and informative.

Lori

[Bill C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason I should give away my picks for free, though. It is generous of everyone here to offer their analysis for free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad. I like talking about baseball and handicapping baseball and I'm always looking for new ideas, methods and approaches. [ QUOTE ]
I think I am doing others a favor as well by pointing out when the analysis is obviously flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

When the season started, I had never handicapped a baseball game in my life, though I did play semi-pro ball in my youth. For various reasons (long story, I'll spare you) I became interested and began to look at the games with the idea of making profitable selections.

When I began to visit this site, it was because like MrBaseball, I had benefitted greatly from the poker strategy forums, and I hoped to get a similar experience with baseball, here on this forum.

That really hasn't happened. MrB gives some good info on a regular basis, and occasionally whipsaw does. Other than that there are people who want free picks, and there is the occasional "knocker" like DougOzzzzz, who is forever ready to criticize while offering no solid info on how things should be done.

There is probably more than one way to look at a game; more than one window to see it through, just as there is in any other gamble, eg horseracing, where I can tell you I have decades of very successful professional experience.

Sometimes I just look over all the stats, write down a number for each game hoping to take in all the important factors, and compare it with the published line on Pinny etc. That has been profitable. Other times I'll go into greater depth, especially with the starting pitchers, which I think is my strong suit.

Yes, DougOzzzz, there ARE holes in my game. I had hoped to plug some of them by learning on this forum, and also then sharing some of what I have. But in fact, I have learned pretty much nothing of value to me here. It is TOTALLY unlike, for example, Small Stakes Holdem forum, where every visit is a seminar (perhaps with acid bath included!).

I have a poor grasp of how to rate an offense, a poor grasp of how to rate relief pitching. I have never read a single word here, other than a few ideas I got from MrB afew mos ago, on any of this. I have what I consider a very refined way (although not entirely original) of looking at Starting pitchers, and as DougOzzzz pointed out, I use mostly, but not entirely, that in making my picks, and I've had a good profitable season. Yes it could be better. Yes, I could very definitely know more.

DougOzzz made the comments, to the effect, that he knows all this stuff but just doesn;t have time to set it all down. Well I just don't need that bs. I don't see any point in any dialog with him. He has plenty of time to knock.

I made the comment once on here that I feel like I'm on an island, when it comes to betting baseball. That's exactly what it feels like. I am about to give up on any meaningful sharing and discussion on this forum. Maybe it's time I should realize that being on an island is the BEST way for me to accomplish what I want to do, and forget any meaningful discussions here.

bc

[whipsaw]

[ QUOTE ]

I am willing to admit I am wrong when I am wrong. I have done so several times at twoplustwo. Don't feel like looking up previous posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't look like you're wrong very often... a quick search of the archives suggests that you haven't admitted being wrong in a sports post since you registered with twoplustwo. Must be nice to be perfect and constantly do nothing but critique others' posts while providing nothing affirmative yourself.