| Author: |
[Penalty Box] Topic: Baseball Betting Philosophies and Strategies Reposted |
|
GameHunter |
 View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#1 Posted: 3/6/2009 11:54:56 AM I have received many emails and inquiries about a piece I wrote last March
for baseball. I posted this in someone else's thread last month but I thought I would
post it in a separate thread so it is easier to find for the people that have
been asking. For those who have read it previously, I am sorry for the
redundancy. I added one new part at the bottom and noted that it was revised in
2009. Best of luck to everyone this baseball season.
Written in March 2008
WHY BETTING UNDERDOGS IN BASEBALL IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER
SPORT.
There are several different approaches and
strategies to handicapping baseball, but the most fundamental and obvious
starting point is one that is taken completely for granted. Baseball is quite
unique when it comes to betting because the gaps between the best and worst
teams are far closer than in any other sport. Let's look at the other major
betting sports.
In the NFL, the New England Patriots were 16-0 winning
100% of their games. The worst 3 teams in the NFL this past season were 3-13
winning just 18.8% of their games.
In the NBA this season, Boston is
currently 54-13 winning 80.6% of their games and Detroit is 49-19 winning 72.1%
of their games. The worst teams in the NBA are Miami winning 17.9%, and Seattle
at 23.5%.
In NCAA Basketball this season, Memphis compiled a 33-1
record winning at an amazing 97.1% while North Carolina is 32-2 winning at
94.1%. The worst teams in the country were Rice at 3-27 winning 10% of their
games, Sacramento State at 4-24 (14.3%) and Oregon State at 6-25 (19.4%).
In NCAA Football, Kansas and Hawaii both compiled records of 12-1 winning
92.3% while five Division 1 teams ended their seasons at 1-11 (8.3%).
Meanwhile, the 2007 baseball season was not that much different than any
other baseball season.
The Boston Red Sox and Cleveland Indians tied
for the best record in the majors at 96-66 (59.3%). The two worst teams in the
majors were the Tampa Bay Rays at 66-96 (40.7%) and the Pittsburgh Pirates at
68-94 (42%). These records are nowhere close to the best and worst records of
any other major betting sport.
So there you have it:
Sport Best Worst
NFL 100% 18.8%
NBA 80% 16.9%
NCAAB 97% 10%
NCAAF 95% 8.3%
MLB 59.3% 40.7%
While it seems like an obvious point, it is often overlooked that the worst
team in baseball still wins at a percentage well in excess of at least double
the worst team in any sport. Taking it a step further, based on last season's
numbers, the worst team in baseball won slightly more than 2 out of every 5
games, while the best team in baseball won slightly less than 3 out of every 5
games. Let's face it, in NCAAB, if you put Memphis up against Rice 100 times
this season, Memphis would easily win 90% of the time and probably more. If the
Patriots played the Dolphins 10 times, they'd easily win 9 on average. It's
nothing like that in baseball.
In 2007, the Pittsburgh Pirates (the
team with the worst record in the NL at 42%) beat the Arizona Diamondbacks (the
best record in the NL) 4 out of 9 times (44.4%). Tampa Bay with the worst record
in the AL was 8-10 (44.4%) against the New York Yankees who had the 3rd best
record in baseball. In both of these situations, as long as the Pirates and Rays
were an average of +125 in those winning games (which I assure you they were)
they showed a profit against their mightier foe.
If you want a more
compelling argument, the Florida Marlins with the 2nd worst record in the NL
swept the Cubs who won the Central Division 6 games to zero.
The point
can also be highlighted by looking at pitchers. Hardly anyone could tell me who
the most profitable pitcher in baseball was last season. It was Aaron Harang at
+13 units. Compare that to probably the best pitcher in the MLB, Johan Santana
who was -11.1 units. The average bettor certainly feels more secure backing
Johan Santana but if you bet $100 on every Aaron Harang start you would have won
$1,300 last year and if you bet $100 on every Johan Santana start last season
you would have lost $1,110; a $2,410 difference.
To put things into
perspective, try and think about the biggest one game baseball mismatch of the
season. My guess is last season it was close to -400 maybe in a game like Johan
Santana at home against Edwin Jackson. How big of a mismatch is it really? We
see some really big mismatches in other sports. In the first round of the NCAA
tournament this week, UCLA is a 32-33 point favorite over Mississippi Valley
State. Now that's a mismatch. It's such a huge mismatch, you probably can't even
find a moneyline anywhere on the game. The highest moneyline I see posted is
Kansas versus Texas Arlington where Kansas is -7000. So is the biggest mismatch
of the season in baseball really that much of a mismatch when you compare it to
other sports? To put things into perspective, the biggest baseball mismatch of
the season is the equivalent of the NCAA tournament game in Round 1 of
Xavier-Georgia where Xavier is an 8-8.5 point favorite. Georgia's victory Sunday
over Arkansas in the SEC Championship game as a 9.5 point dog was far greater
than any upset we will see in baseball this season.
To sum it up, too
many baseball bettors shy away from dogs like they can't win when it is clear
that any given underdog can beat any favorite on any given day at a rate unlike
every other sport. Until people get comfortable in baseball playing underdogs on
a regular basis and seeking out value, there is no chance to win betting
baseball in the long run. |
|
quote |
|
GameHunter |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#2 Posted: 3/6/2009 11:55:22 AM
Too many people get caught up in what a
handicapper's winning percentage is in baseball and to me that just further
explains to me that people do not understand betting baseball, as successful
baseball handicapping is not a function of winning percentage. I would go so far
as to say that if any average baseball handicapper had a gun to his head and was
asked to hit 60% over the course of the season, he probably could. Simply, if a
baseball bettor took every favorite of 200 or greater, he would probably hit
60%. The problem is even you played all favorites with the average bet being a
favorite of -200, at 60%, over 100 plays at $100 each, you would lose $2000. At
an average of -200, a handicapper would need to hit 67% to even show a
negligible profit. Don't forget, the best team in baseball last season only hit
at a 59.3% clip.
Taken a step further, a handicapper playing an
average of -150 could hit 60%, but at 60% (a better % than the best MLB team
last season) he would only breakeven.
Conversely, a handicapper
playing an average of +110 would only need to hit at a rate of 47.7% to
breakeven. So I ask you, who is the better baseball handicapper, the 60% capper
playing an average of -150 or the 48% capper playing at an average of +110? The
answer is the 48% capper as he shows a profit while the 60% capper above
breakeven. The point I am driving home is winning percentage in baseball is less
significant than other factors.
For those of you who followed me last
season, you are aware I play more games than almost any other handicapper. Lord
knows there were countless haters who would state that I played too many games
and couldn't be successful. I respect they are entitled to their opinion, but
based upon my baseball model, I won +0.12 units per game played, so my
overall profit increased by an average of 0.12 units with each game I played.
That is not to say I should bet every game, but based upon my handicapping
techniques, the more games that fit my personal criteria, the more profitable I
was.
I played 1,172 games last year and finished with a record of
626-546 (53.4%) and made a profit of +140.86 units. Let's say this season I play
1000 games at an average of +110 (slightly higher than last year). Here is what
I can expect if you assume that I flat bet every game at the same amount:
Win % Unit Profit
47.7 Even
48% +8 units
49% +29 units
50% +50 units
51% +71 units
52% +92 units
53% +113 units
54% +134 units
I won't use anything above 54%
because it just won't happen. Last year I hit over 53.4% and as such, had an
outstanding season. Even if I don't reach that standard, at 50%, I will still
make a handsome profit. |
|
quote |
|
GameHunter |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#3 Posted: 3/6/2009 11:55:40 AM
It
is scary to think that some baseball bettors actually play through books that
offer 20 cent lines. Simply put, that is suicide. In fact, I am guilty too, as
last season I played at 10 cent shops and did not use Matchbook or Pinnacle,
which are two of the major reduced juice shops. For those of you not familiar
with places like Matchbook, you can basically play with 1% juice. When a game is
-120, take back +110 at dime shops, at Matchbook, it is probably -115/+115 and
there is 1% juice charged to the winner. Here is a comparison of what I would
expect if I averaged +110 for the season at a reduced shop like matchbook,
compared to a 10 cent line which would cost me five cents per play overall
(meaning I would average +105, thus the +105 column below), compared to a 20
cent line which would cost me 10 cents per play on average (meaning I would
average +100, thus the +100 column below):
Win %
+110 +105 +100
47.7 Even -22.15u -46u
48% +8
units -16u -40u
49% +29 units +4.5u
-20u
50% +50 units +25u EVEN
51% +71
units +45.5u +20u
52% +92 units +66u
+40u
53% +113 units +86.5u +60u
54% +134
units +107u +80u
By using a reduced shop like Matchbook
compared to 10 cent and 20 cent shops, if I hit 50%, I earn 50 units on the
season in my example, but at the 10 cent store, I would earn 25 units and at the
20 cent store, I would breakeven. These are HUGE differences. I reviewed my
numbers from last year and had I used a reduced juice book like Matchbook and
averaged a savings of 5 cents per game (that is conservative as it is closer to
8% if you are a good shopper) then I would've earned an additional 39 units last
season. YOU MUST USE A REDUCED JUICE BOOK.
|
|
quote |
|
GameHunter |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#4 Posted: 3/6/2009 11:56:04 AM
The key to handicapping
baseball is searching for value in relation to the line. A bet in
baseball should not necessarily be a bet on who you think will win, but rather
who you think will outperform the line and odds and provides the best value.
Take for example opening day with the Yankees hosting the Bluejays. Depending on
the line, I could invest in the Yankees in certain circumstances or the Bluejays
in others so it is clear my wager is not based upon who I think will necessarily
win the game, but rather who based upon my handicapping, provides the best
value. Said in a different way, I am shooting to determine which team I think
linemakers and the general public are undervaluing based upon my techniques of
handicapping. If the Yankees open up at EVEN in that game, I very well could
play the Yankees. If the Yankees open up at -130, I could very well invest in
the Bluejays.
I like to think of each game I handicap as based upon my
research and understanding of a particular line, if the two teams in question
played 100 times under the same fact pattern, how many time (what %) do I think
in my mind each team would win, particularly, how many time will the underdog
win. Here are the breakeven points for the percentage times a team must win if
they win a game a certain % of times:
%Win Breakeven Line
50% Even
48% +109
46%
+118
44% +127
42% +138
40% +150
38% +163
36%
+178
34% +194
32% +212
I highlighted the
40%/+150 line, because that is the line where a team in this situation would
have to perform at the level of the worst team in baseball's performance over
the course of the season (40%). When I break down each game, if I feel a team
will perform better than the line, then it is worth an investment. For example,
if on opening day, I believe the Bluejays have a 46% chance of winning in my
mind, if I can get reasonable value better than +118 (say, maybe 123 to 125+),
then I am buying. Set in non-arithmetic terms, if I think there are factors that
linemakers and typical gamblers are not factoring into the line of a particular
game that I think are relevant to one side, it will often mean I believe that
team will outperform the line and I will invest in them.
I have read a lot of gibberish that writeups are tripe and
just ways a poster tries to convince a reader on why to play a certain side. I
view it differently. When I wrote games up last season, the writeups were
basically the relevant statistics which I saw as reasons why the side I was
supporting was undervalued with respect to the line. It's not necessarily the
reasons why one team will win the game, but analytical reasons why I believed
the team I was betting provided better value than was seen by linemakers and the
general public.
|
|
quote |
|
GameHunter |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#5 Posted: 3/6/2009 11:56:19 AM
OAKLAND +106 (L) (1.75 UNITS) - Bazooka Joe Blanton has gone from my
fade list to buy list in less than 3 weeks. He has really turned things around
and in his last 5 starts tossing 34 innings and allowing 29 hits, 9 runs, 1 home
run and a 25:3 K:BB ratio. Last outing against the Angels on the road was a gem
as after allowing 2 first inning runs he followed with 7 scoreless innings. He
had a lot of movement on his pitches and was hitting his spots. Meanwhile,
Horacio Ramirez might be 8-5 this season but the numbers are not impressive. In
his last 9 starts he has thrown 49 innings and allowed 69 hits, 42 runs, 8 home
runs and had a 24:21 K:BB ratio. The Mariners have really begun to free fall and
even after yesterday's football like 14-7 win, they are 2-13 in their last 15
games. Their bullpen, which has been their strong point most of the season, has
abandoned them and we should see the pen early today.
Simply stated,
in this game, the things I wrote about were reasons why at +106, the A's were a
solid investment. The information included factors which I thought were relevant
but not the typical information which may have been factored into the line by
linemakers or the betting public and why that day the A's provided value in
comparison to the line.
I am not going to get deep into my baseball
handicapping techniques because it really isn't an exact science for which there
is a recipe. I rely heavily on SABERMETRICS, lefty-righty matchups, ballpark
trends and configurations as they relate to individual pitching styles, current
form of pitchers, base running and fielding attributes, bullpen use,
pitcher-hitter matchups, weather, umpires, home/road trends, managing styles,
ground ball, fly ball pitching and hitting trends, injury reports, hot and cold
streaks and anything else I can get my hands on.
|
|
quote |
|
|
|
GameHunter |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#6 Posted: 3/6/2009 11:56:34 AM Added in 2009:
It is similar to counting cards in blackjack. All you are looking to do is
swing the percentages in your favor. A good card counter swings the advantage
towards himself and instead of the house having a 51/49 or 52/58 advantage, to
somewhere around 52/48 in his favor. By doing so, the card counter wins
thousands over time. That is exactly what I am trying to do in baseball.
I have no set formula for my handicapping and each day I am not sure where
my research and thoughts will lead me. I like looking deep into the numbers and
for angles that I think give me a better advantage than the current line. Take
for example on my recent write-up on the Cubs starting pitching this season. I
have certain mental notes that I want to look closely at as the season
progresses. This is just one example of the kind of things I look at:
Ted Lilly - A noted fly-ball pitcher. Vulnerable to the long ball. Look to
fade against power hitting teams and especially when the wind blows out at
Wrigley. Remember not to give him an edge against teams with strong left
handed hitters, but an edge against predominantly right handed hitting lineups
as ironically he is tougher against righties.
Carlos Zambrano - Tougher on lefties. Look to fade in day games as the last
three seasons he has allowed more than 1.5 earned runs per start during the day.
Streaky and has faded in August the past two years. Don't fade him when he is
hot and fade him when he begins to show two consecutive bad outings.
Rich Harden - With injury concerns, Piniella will baby him. Look to fade
Harden, at high prices in situations where the Cubs' bullpen is coming off of
heavy recent use, as Harden will typically go 5-6 innings at best and will need
to rely on the bullpen for 3-4 innings to close things out.
Aaron Heilman - Struggles with lefties. Look to fade him against teams
stacked with strong lefties like the Phillies but play him against teams with
heavy right handed lineups.
Sean Marshall - Road ERA is 1.25 runs better on than at home. He actually
struggles against left handed hitters so look closely at opposing teams
lineups.
Another thing I look to do is analyze the home plate umpires after the
first game of a series (in the first game of the series they aren't announced
until about 30 minutes before the game but after the first game, just look who
the first base umpire was the day before, as he will be behind the plate the
next day) and figure out their style and trends in relation to the starting
pitchers trends. There are all kinds of umpire statistics readily available and
many umpires will show generous strike zones or stingy strike zones. A stingy
umpire matched with a pitcher with control issues or a pitcher that likes to
nibble the corners can be a recipe for disaster while a generous umpire can be a
recipe for success.
I incorporate countless other factors into my handicapping which would take
hours and hours to try and explain and it might not even make total sense.
Regardless of the factors you utilize as a handicapper, look for factors that
are relevant to you which make you feel a team is being undervalued by the
general public and linemakers. In your mind, never say, I love the Tigers
tomorrow without knowing the line. If you love the Tigers that day, love them
because you feel there are factors important to you that provide value in your
investment and not just because you think the Tigers will win. When
you look for value instead of just who will win, you will become a much better
baseball handicapper. |
|
quote |
|
bookburner |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1637
Location: United States |
#7 Posted: 3/6/2009 12:19:07 PM That is great stuff Game  |
|
quote |
|
AJLightning |
RSI  |
All-Star
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 11250
Location: Texas |
#8 Posted: 3/6/2009 12:36:17 PM Awesome...just copied and pasted this and am going to read it, and read it again.
Here's my dilemma...being in the U.S. makes it hard to find reduced juice books. I currently use BetUs which has 20 cent baseball lines and 30 cent golf lines (f'in crooks). I know, I know this really blows. I'm hitting golf at a 56% clip right now, but the juice is horrible.
Any suggestions to a good book for baseball, and golf for that matter, that allows U.S. customers?
Thanks in advance  |
|
quote |
|
GameHunter |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#9 Posted: 3/6/2009 12:39:04 PM
|
|
quote |
|
AJLightning |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 11250
Location: Texas |
#10 Posted: 3/6/2009 12:46:30 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by GameHunter: Have you tried Matchbook? There is no better place to play and the juice is minimal.
I was just about to look into Matchbook.
Thanks for your knowledge Mr. Hunter |
|
quote |
|
andarmac99 |
RSI  |
MVP
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16694
Location: |
#11 Posted: 3/6/2009 12:47:32 PM |
|
quote |
|
docircho |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Captain
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9273
Location: Washington |
#12 Posted: 3/6/2009 12:48:11 PM |
|
quote |
|
sg004591 |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3404
Location: Canada |
#13 Posted: 3/6/2009 12:49:58 PM |
|
quote |
|
AJLightning |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 11250
Location: Texas |
#14 Posted: 3/6/2009 1:00:27 PM browsed around Matchbook a little...so they offer you 3 betting options?
ex: Sea +108, Oak -109
Sea +107, Oak -110
Sea +104, Oak -113
so you choose which one you want? SWEET
I may open an account today! |
|
quote |
|
NumberPower |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 441
Location: |
#15 Posted: 3/6/2009 1:09:25 PM No doubt you are a competent capper and im not dissin, but back to your TOR 46% +118 example for a sec....You mention a number of factors that go into your process then you go on to say " I incorporate countless other factors into my handicapping which would take hours and hours to try and explain ..." which is no doubt true. You somehow can synthesize(i cant spell for garbage) all of these factors together for 2 teams and determine that Tor has a 46% +118 chance of winning and if the linesmaker says they have a 45% +123 then you will buy them. Thats a 1 % difference in opinion . Thats cuttin it pretty thin dont you think? I mean in the most random of all sports where inches really make the difference between winning and losing every night, thinking you have a bankable 1% advantage is kinda silly. You mention BlackJack where a pro can determine w/ mathmatical certainty that they have that 1% advantage and then bet into it over and over again, capping a sport like baseball offers no such certainty.I guess my point is that you should only play TOR at much more inflated price vs what your perception of that price should be, maybe like a 10%.
I dont remember who said this when asked what pornography was " i know it when i see it..." thats kinda how i feel about value in betting baseball and horse racing. I dont try to cut it sooo thin i kinda want the value to jump off the page at me. |
|
quote |
|
GameHunter |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#16 Posted: 3/6/2009 1:10:15 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by AJLightning: browsed around Matchbook a little...so they offer you 3 betting options?
ex: Sea +108, Oak -109
Sea +107, Oak -110
Sea +104, Oak -113
so you choose which one you want? SWEET
I may open an account today!
You have to get used to it, but once you get the grasp, it's easy. Based upon what you just wrote, you can play Oakland at -109 or Seattle at +108. There really is no room between. Often you will see more than a one cent difference. For example, say Oakland -109, Seattle +105. In that example, you don't have to just accept the choices. You can create your own market. If you like Oakland in that scenario, you can create a market for Oakland at -106 or -107 which will give Seattle backer's a chance to accept your offer at +106 or +107 which is a better offer than any that exist at the -109/+105 spread. At -109/+105, the best A's backers can do is -109 and the best Mariner backers can do is +105 so you can tempt either side by making an offer in the middle.
|
|
quote |
|
GameHunter |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
MVP
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17382
Location: United States |
#17 Posted: 3/6/2009 1:25:44 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by NumberPower: No doubt you are a competent capper and im not dissin, but back to your TOR 46% +118 example for a sec....You mention a number of factors that go into your process then you go on to say " I incorporate countless other factors into my handicapping which would take hours and hours to try and explain ..." which is no doubt true. You somehow can synthesize(i cant spell for garbage) all of these factors together for 2 teams and determine that Tor has a 46% +118 chance of winning and if the linesmaker says they have a 45% +123 then you will buy them. Thats a 1 % difference in opinion . Thats cuttin it pretty thin dont you think? I mean in the most random of all sports where inches really make the difference between winning and losing every night, thinking you have a bankable 1% advantage is kinda silly. You mention BlackJack where a pro can determine w/ mathmatical certainty that they have that 1% advantage and then bet into it over and over again, capping a sport like baseball offers no such certainty.I guess my point is that you should only play TOR at much more inflated price vs what your perception of that price should be, maybe like a 10%.
I dont remember who said this when asked what pornography was " i know it when i see it..." thats kinda how i feel about value in betting baseball and horse racing. I dont try to cut it sooo thin i kinda want the value to jump off the page at me.
I think I understand your point. As I stated above, "set in non-arithmetic terms, if I think there are factors that
linemakers and typical gamblers are not factoring into the line of a particular
game that I think are relevant to one side, it will often mean I believe that
team will outperform the line and I will invest in them."
That is my general philosophy. For example, using my Cubs analysis above, if Carlos Zambrano is pitching a day game against a strong right handed hitting lineup, I will be almost sure that I will strongly lean to the other side because those two factors (which I set forth above) alone won't be taken into account for when linemakers make the line. Of course, I need to look at countless other factors to make sure those points aren't counterbalanced by things I feel swing in the Cubs' favor.
In an attempt to try and quantify the +118/46% analogy, I can try to envision whether the dog at +118 will perform better that day than a team that is 74-88 (46%) over the course of the season. Of course it is not an exact science and I agree with you that you certainly want to feel that the team carries at least 5-10 cent in juice advantage in your mind.
I used the math to drive home the point, but putting it aside, my philosophy is that you want to find hidden advantages (whether it be some pitching trend, bullpen overuse, right/lefty matchup, umpire advantage, day/night split, ballpark configuration as it relates to a pitcher's style, etc.), that may not be common knowledge ot how the layperson analyzes the game that gives you and advantage versus the line. If you can find some important trends or factors in one teams' favor, there is a strong chance you will find value in that line.
|
|
quote |
|
andarmac99 |
RSI |
MVP
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16694
Location: |
#18 Posted: 3/6/2009 1:59:16 PM
|
|
quote |
|
slumdog |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Covers Rehab
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1567
Location: |
#19 Posted: 3/6/2009 2:02:22 PM |
|
quote |
|
AJLightning |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 11250
Location: Texas |
#20 Posted: 3/6/2009 2:53:49 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by GameHunter:
I used the math to drive home the point, but putting it aside, my philosophy is that you want to find hidden advantages (whether it be some pitching trend, bullpen overuse, right/lefty matchup, umpire advantage, day/night split, ballpark configuration as it relates to a pitcher's style, etc.), that may not be common knowledge ot how the layperson analyzes the game that gives you and advantage versus the line. If you can find some important trends or factors in one teams' favor, there is a strong chance you will find value in that line.
do you mind to elaborate on this point? I understand all the other angles, but.....oh wait, it just hit me!
Strike Zones? Thats what you mean. Ok I got it. Some umps have big zones and some are tight. Right?
umps showing favoritism towards certain teams? NAW, that would never happen right?  |
|
quote |
|
KOAJ |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Covers Linesmen
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 66698
Location: New Jersey |
#21 Posted: 3/6/2009 3:24:53 PM
covers has great ump stats
|
|
quote |
|
AJLightning |
RSI |
All-Star
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 11250
Location: Texas |
#22 Posted: 3/6/2009 3:31:41 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by KOAJ: AJ - certain pitchers more than certain teams. that Ques-tek thing screwed some guys up for a few years covers has great ump stats
Thank you very much KOAJ.
|
|
quote |
|
andarmac99 |
RSI |
MVP
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16694
Location: |
#23 Posted: 3/6/2009 3:32:57 PM  Doug Eddings
The strike calling machine.
|
|
quote |
|
AJPierzynski |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Banned
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 14936
Location: Illinois |
#24 Posted: 3/6/2009 3:33:34 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by KOAJ: covers has great ump stats
where are they 
|
|
quote |
|
AJPierzynski |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Banned
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 14936
Location: Illinois |
#25 Posted: 3/6/2009 3:34:30 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by andarmac99: Doug Eddings The strike calling machine.
Doug Eddings
Jeff Nelson
Jim Reynolds
Angel Campos
Bill Hohn
|
|
quote |