|
|
#41
04-10-2005, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: MLB 4/10
[ QUOTE ]
not that one or the other was a better bet [/ QUOTE ] All I have argued is the bet. As a Whire Sox fan if they told me they were trading Buehrle for Santana straight up I would like that. But this game, at this price, with this track record, I think Santana is a bad bet. 
|
|
#42
04-10-2005, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MLB 4/10
The differnce between them is far greater in fantasy rather than real because of the huge premium for K's. Also the Cell is the easiest HR park in the AL which gives CHI starters lessor numbers. Not quite Coors but its the worst place for pitchers in AL.
|
|
#43
04-10-2005, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MLB 4/10
[ QUOTE ]
The differnce between them is far greater in fantasy rather than real because of the huge premium for K's. Also the Cell is the easiest HR park in the AL which gives CHI starters lessor numbers. Not quite Coors but its the worst place for pitchers in AL. [/ QUOTE ] I would consider Arlington worse
|
|
#44
04-10-2005, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MLB 4/10
Minnesota is winning 5-2.......as you know you can look at all the stats you want but you can't predict which random non essential player will boot a ball and then change the whole outcome. Like I said you take Minnesota here with all of prior said factors. Buehrle got tagged up today.
|
|
#46
04-11-2005, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MLB 4/10
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Just a few quick thoughts/plays for tomorrow YTD (Posted) 6-6 Braves (Smoltz) +107 Astros (Oswalt) -155 Red Sox (Clement) -130 A's (Harden) -120 White Sox (Buehrle) +135 any thoughts? [/ QUOTE ] I am going against you on two picks. Taking the Mets at -113 with Pedro. This is sorta hunchy I admit. The 12 K's in 6 innings makes me think Pedro is back this year. Also, Smoltz first start didn't exactly bode well for his transition to being a starter (again). Also I took the Twins at +150 (-1.5) runs. The Twins are a good team, Santana is a great pitcher. They're home. Buehrle and the White Sox are both just average. I think they win this more than 60%, which is what the current money line is. Since I am picking 2 favorites already though, and because I don't think a 1 run Twins win constitutes 20% or more of possible outcomes, I went with the run line instead. Also went on Oakland at -124 which was the easiest bet to make given Harden on the mound, who I think is easily better than Zito. I wouldn't bet my whole bankroll on the game though. [/ QUOTE ] Not to be results-oriented or anything, but I'd say these picks worked out well.
|
|
#47
04-11-2005, 04:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MLB 4/10
[ QUOTE ]
It's quite obvious that we disagree [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] This is good and this is what makes a market and I gotta be honest I like it when I am almost universally disagreed with. If too many people start agreeing with me I figure I've missed something. [ QUOTE ] I think Santana is significantly better than Buehrle [/ QUOTE ] I don't. I consider "significantly" to be a very strong word. I'd say Santana is significantly better than someone like Jose Lima for example. Buehrle has a lifetime 60% winning percentage. NOBODY is significantly better than that. [/ QUOTE ] At least we agree that Santana is significantly better than Jose Lima (then again, who isn't?). I'd say that 70% is significantly better than 60% though. Though I refuse to use win percentages as my main defense [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Santana is safely in, Buehrle is not [/ QUOTE ] You complain about small samples yet annoint Santana as one of the best ever after really only one full year of starting. But I agree he had one hell of a year and will probably have many more barring injury. [/ QUOTE ] Certainly he hasn't earned the right to be called one of the best ever. He was one of the top 2 pitchers last year though, and I expect him to be one of the top 5 pitchers over the next few seasons. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The last game pitched by both these guys is a small factor of course, and Buehrle has the edge there. But it's a very small factor compared to the others [/ QUOTE ] I like current form a lot. As the season wears on performance over the past 3 or 4 starts is the mainstay of my handicapping technique. Current form outweighs a lot of factors in my analysis. [/ QUOTE ] I'd like to see an analysis showing how "current form" (i.e., last 4 starts) compares to past season and career statistics in predicting future results. It's been shown that most hitters' hot and cold streaks can be explained by random variation. It might be different for pitchers, and certainly things can change over the offseason. Nevertheless, we're still talking about 1 start here, not 3 or 4. If we go a little further back into the 2nd half of last season, Santana's numbers are frighteningly good. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I disagree with 4 starts being even "sorta significant" - you probably need at least 8 starts to even reach that territory [/ QUOTE ] 4 was just last season, as I stated earlier he has 8 total starts against Chicago where Twins go 4-4 (ie coinflip territory) [/ QUOTE ] As I said, 8 is better than 4, and getting into "sorta significant" territory. There's still alot of variation. For instance, a pitcher with a "true" 65% winning percentage will win 4 or fewer games about 29.3% of the times over 8 decisions. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Even a full year's worth of stats can be greatly influenced by luck, [/ QUOTE ] Like Santana's big breakout last season? Okay I don't think it was luck [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] He is a true pitching talent and I was all over this guy years before many really realized how good he was going to be. But now he has the big name recognition and the big favorite lines that go with it. Based on past performances by both teams and pitchers there is nothing in the history to make Twins -160 favorites tonight. It's a simple too much/too little respect play which happens all the time. [/ QUOTE ] By the way, I bet this while it was at -148 on the money line and +150 on the run line. I wouldn't have made it at -160/+138. [ QUOTE ] I hope we can learn from each other as the season wears on as we obviously have different approaches. I concentrate on past performance, specific matchup and current form primarily. Oh and most importantly arithmetic [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] While you seem to know a lot about this projection stuff and look at a more abstract type of thing. I'd like to learn more about the sabermetrics or whatever the heck they are called but I could never firgure out how that stuff helped determine how often team A should beat team B. [/ QUOTE ] As I said, I think there's definitely some value in all the information that you provide here. What I have trouble with is assigning how much value should be assigned to each variable. I think with alot of research someone could probably come up with a nice formula that shows how important a pitcher's last 3 starts are compared to his past season's statistics, for instance.
|
|
#48
04-11-2005, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MLB 4/10
[ QUOTE ]
you can't predict which random non essential player will boot a ball and then change the whole outcome [/ QUOTE ] True enough. If Crede doesn't stumble on that ground ball the big inning for Minnesota is averted. The ball bounces real funny sometimes which puts even greater pressure on the team laying the juice.
|
|
#49
04-11-2005, 08:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MLB 4/10
[ QUOTE ]
you can't predict which random non essential player will boot a ball and then change the whole outcome [/ QUOTE ] What have you guys got against actually looking up the actual numbers? They are about the same but the Cells reconstruction last year changes it so the wind always swirls out.
|
|
#50
04-11-2005, 08:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MLB 4/10
[ QUOTE ]
If we go a little further back into the 2nd half of last season, Santana's numbers are frighteningly good [/ QUOTE ] If we look at Santanas splits we see he is notoriously a second half pitcher. If you blanked out the names and looked at the charts and past performances and splits there wasn't any statistical evidence that either one of these teams should have been favored over the other. It didn't come in but it doesn't really matter because the edge was there. As long as I can dig through the numbers and identify edges it will be another successful baseball season. [ QUOTE ] What I have trouble with is assigning how much value should be assigned to each variable [/ QUOTE ] All you have to do is answer the question "how often does it happen" and then do the arithmetic. Betting that a guy who has done nothing but break even against a team in the past who is pitching against a solid winner who is 13-7 lifetime in this particular ballpark when the pitcher/batter matchup charts are virtually even and needs to lay enough juice where he has to win over 60% just to break even is very bad math. Each baseball game is just a math problem. Do the math correctly and the money will follow.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
