Rockies +144 - Page 2

scott8 · #11 09-07-2005, 01:28 AM

Crazy finish.

Rockies can't score in the top of the 9th with bases loaded and no outs and then the Padres have bases loaded in the bottom and fail to score.

chiachu · #12 09-07-2005, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Crazy finish.

Rockies can't score in the top of the 9th with bases loaded and no outs and then the Padres have bases loaded in the bottom and fail to score.

[/ QUOTE ]

very entertaining game indeed

DougOzzzz · #13 09-07-2005, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
19-46 overall

[/ QUOTE ]

So does this stat mean to never bet on the Rockies on the road?

Or is it possible that there still might be some value in a bet where they are on the road?

Do you only place bets on teams with winning records?

I don't mean to be a dick, but you are a douche bag.

-SC

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you are being a dick. The guy was just pointing out a fact - that the Rockies generally suck on the road. I don't think this year's stats are that meaningful - H/R splits are subject to wild fluctuations, and take a VERY long time to establish any degree of confidence.

However, the Rockies have had a gigantic H/R split since they joined the league (+157 points at home). That's about double the HFA for the average team.

I believe the pitcher matchup favored the Rockies. Park is a pretty crappy pitcher as pointed out, and Cook has been solid if not overpowering. He's actually a good fit for Colorado, IMO, with a 2.9 or so GB/FB ratio. He hasn't given up a home run this year so far and has demonstrated pretty good control.

Still, you've got the Rockies on the road, and the pitching matchup has to be HUGELY favorable to make claims like they should be -120. That doesn't mean it's a bad play - if I had to pick I'd have taken the Rockies in this one. But I doubt anyone has gotten rich betting on the Rockies on the road.

By the way - I am not trying to bash whipsaw for any of his analysis. I think it's really generous of him to offer his advice for free on this forum. I just think whipsaw takes small sample sizes with low ERAs too seriously. I'm glad the pick worked out; though Id have placed the true line closer to +130 for Colorado rather than -120.

By the way, after reading through the rest of this thread, I agree this other guy is a douche bag. But only because he reversed his opinion based on the outcome of a virtual coin flip.

MyTurn2Raise · #14 09-07-2005, 01:55 AM

I was just complementing him for picking the game right. I didn't change my stance. I thought the pick was not good and I was wrong--not sure how this makes me a douche. I just think you need an awful lot to take Colorado on the road and I was not quite buying into Colorado's starting pitcher in this one.

I was asking a leading question for more info and support. I didn't think the 9-6 last month on the road was that good of a stat. I erred in not listing the specific reasons I though it was poor...my bad.

Gosh you guys read douche awful quick.

DougOzzzz · #15 09-07-2005, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was just complementing him for picking the game right. I didn't change my stance. I thought the pick was not good and I was wrong--not sure how this makes me a douche. I just think you need an awful lot to take Colorado on the road and I was not quite buying into Colorado's starting pitcher in this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand. If the Rockies lost, would the pick have been bad?

If you get +200 on a team that should win 45% of the time, and they lose, was it a bad pick?

DougOzzzz · #16 09-07-2005, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I was asking a leading question for more info and support. I didn't think the 9-6 last month on the road was that good of a stat. I erred in not listing the specific reasons I though it was poor...my bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think maybe I misread you. I agree that 9-6 the last month on the road does not come close to negating a 10+ year history of sucking on the road.

MyTurn2Raise · #17 09-07-2005, 02:05 AM

not at all... IMO, the pick was bad (ie I didn't think the Rockies at +144 was good for this situation), I'm just giving kudos to the guy who analyzed the game better than me. The pitcher did come through as whipsaw said.
EDIT (and Chan Ho Park sucked)

scott8 · #18 09-07-2005, 02:09 AM

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you are being a dick. The guy was just pointing out a fact - that the Rockies generally suck on the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Ozz, I am a dick. But you are giving the poster I went after too much credit I think.

Whipsaw has been more than generous in posting his picks and his analysis.

I didn't view the poster listing the Rockies road record as anything but a smart ass comment - he didn't say anything about the actual game or whether there was value in the line, etc.

Whipsaw does, and it is greatly appreciated.

Being the dick I am, I will gladly point out the douche bag when he interferes with a valuable poster.

With that said, I really don't think its a big deal at all, I mean most of this in jest.

-SC

DougOzzzz · #19 09-07-2005, 02:31 AM

At least we agree on something. You're a dick, the other guy's a douche bag, and I'm both.

craig r · #20 09-07-2005, 03:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
At least we agree on something. You're a dick, the other guy's a douche bag, and I'm both.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, i read this whole thread to come to a conclusion I already knew [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] .

craig

p.s. I am going to PM Tech and ask him to change the name of this thread to "DougOzzzz: Douche, Dick, or Both?"