***My comments will be posted below, where appropriate:
I posted this in "Batter Up" but it was during the rush period and got lost. Would really like to hear some other's thoughts.
I have heard Nolan and others I respect say you should never bet a team to accomplish something beyond their capability.
***Actually, I wish I would follow that advice more consistently. But that's not exactly what I meant. For example, if you were to hypotherically get the TAMPA BAY RAYS at +300 every single game, then I would make the wager -- based on the premise they will win at least 1/4th of their games (giving you +EV if you always bet the RAYS at +300.). Of course, the reality is more murky. I always try to remember that every team will win a third of its games, and every team will lose a third of their games -- so essentially teams that are getting big values against over-rated pitchers are usually the best plays -- although the varience (swings) is high.
This brings up the topic of betting dogs in Baseball. If randy Johnson, Pedro, etc are pitching against teams that do not have pitching opposition and do not possess an offense why wouldn't you take the favorite even with a line of -280?
***Because if you look at the stats of those key starters, they are usually break-even at best (moneyline wise). I do not have the stats in front of me, but Martinez and Johnson usually face tougher compeition, which means their teams are hard pressed to generate many runs. Martinez, Brown, Johnson, and others will win more game sthan they lose, but their overall team wins (in games they start) is not likely to be higher than about 60-65 percent (I believe figures over the past few season wil bear this out). The pitching ace will get a "no-decision" almost a quarter of the time. This makes a bet of -200 (or higher) a very poor play. An exception might be if the opposing pitcher was absolutely terrible (or was getting his first major league start -- only then would I lay 2-1 or higher).
For instance, knowing Tampa Bay does not have an offense, starting pitcher, or bullpen, would you take Arizona laying 280-300 with Johnson pitching? Why not?
***Because TAMPA -- even with all their problems -- is STILL going to manage to win 60-70 games this year. Maybe more. And what if the D-Backs bats go silent? Johnson might pitch a masterpiece, but one any given night ANY starting major league pitcher is capable of throwing a shutout. I can't even begin to think of a situation where you would lay a price like -280 (give me Texas' offense, Martinez on the mound, facing the Rangers or Pirates starters and maybe I would lay -230-240 but never 3-1). I'd be surprized if anyone here would agree with laying such a high price in any major league game.
So often I hear cappers say they never lay more than 150 or 160. I question whether that is sound logic. Would love to hear from some of the more experienced.
***That might be an exaggeration. I'll certainly lay a high price if everything lines up, and the home team is favored by "only" -160 or -170. But as you lay a higher price, the rewards diminish significantly.
Thanks
Bill
***Good question Bill. One more point: Keep in mind that these ace starters are getting high prices becasue they have ALREADY built up stats. I like to look for starters that are capable of becoming aces. I'm looking for THE NEXT MARTINEZ or CLEMENS while he is still reasonably priced at EVEN money. Before the public catches on. Right now, I'm looking at Weaver of the Tigers really strong as a pitcher capable of making the next big step to superstardum ( could be wrong, my comments are preliminary). Daal is another for the Phillies. The key is to watch a pitcher who is gaining consistency and the public may not have latched onto yet. Sure, Martinez and Johnson are always going to be 2-1 favorites anytime they go to the ill. But give me a starter that's on the crest of making it big, and I'll take my chances getting back a much better price.
All comments welcome.
-- Nolan Dalla
[/QUOTE]
