It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baseball: WORLD SERIES

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
scoresandodds.com, which reliably gives offshore gambling lines for sporting events, has Contreras as a $1.35 favorite tomorrow, which means they have Clemens as a $1.25 underdog and think the true odds are 13-10 that Chicago will win Game One.

WHAT?!?!

The same site also has a computer with a zillion stats, the kinds gamblers love, and it offers its own projections on these games. Do you know what odds it gives on the game tomorrow? Try Clemens as a $1.66 FAVORITE and Contreras as a $1.66 underdog! I've never seen such a big discrepancy between their computer and the offshore casinos' lines, and it sure makes me wish I hadn't: (1) quit betting on baseball [it ruins the fun]; and (2) moved so far away from any lawful sports book.

I think the computer is right.

Making Clemens a $1.66 favorite means Houston is a 5-3 favorite tomorrow. Now, that might be a SLIGHT overstatement, but it's a paradigm of sanity compared to making the low-scoring Sox a 13-10 favorite over the man whose Adjusted ERA for this last year was an astonishing 211. (!!!)

I have no idea what the best single-season Adjusted ERA previously was for a full-time pitcher over the age of 40 in the Live Ball Era (pitching stats before 1920 should not count), but it's below 178, I can say that much for sure. 211 at age 43 is just unbelievable. And yeah, I know Houston can't hit much, but the Chisox....

I hope nobody bets too much money on this game or the Series because of my mouthing off. I got killed on the 3 Series I bet heavy on (1979 [Baltimore blows a 3 games to 1 lead], 1980 [Aikens can't field Unser's ground ball in 9th inning of Game 5, with KC up 3-2 and Series tied 2-2], 1981 [Yankees dissolve after taking 2-0 lead, due to their puke owner]).

But how can Clemens be such a conspicuous underdog tomorrow?! And, after the Astros have played so well, and the Chisox were spared a 2 games to 0 deficit at home by a dubious (very charitable word for it) bit of umpiring, how can the Chisox be -$1.30/+$1.20 in the Series as a whole?

I am not saying these things out of partisanship. I've lived my whole life in Northern California. I rooted for Houston to finally make the Series, but in general I like Texas just about as much as most Texans like Northern California. And since none of the Chisox' fathers (or almost certainly grandfathers) were around for the shame of 1919, I think it's about time they got to win one. I mean, don't y'all think they've paid their dues after 86 years?

But to install them as a 5/4 favorite in this Series, and as an even bigger favorite against the man MANY knowledgeable students of baseball history (including me) consider the greatest right-hander ever? (I'm waitin' on the end of your career, Pedro.) Well, they may wind up being right, and the Chisox certainly have a good chance of winning, but there is no way in the world I would make them favorites in this Series, much less in Game 1.

Is there something I don't know about how the top 6 guys in that lineup have traditionally hit Clemens? Or about how Chisox pitchers have traditionally fared against Houston's best hitters? I know the Chisox have a fine rotation, too, but....

Anyone have any insight into this?

Baseball History Nut




posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
White Sox in 4.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunc7
White Sox in 4.


OK. Emotionally, I hope you are right, at least about who wins, although 4-game sweeps in the Series really suck. But please tell me WHY the Sox should be favored when they staggered into the Series with the help of atrocious umpiring (much worse than Houston's), and their staff has zero experience of this magnitude, while Clemens is a god and Pettite has a ton of pressure-cooker experience and Oswalt's been their ace lately & pitched a masterpiece to get them there.

I mean, I want you to be right. I want you to be right because NOBODY should have to go so long without winning it. But even without Clemens, I'd probably still prefer Houston's staff (a close call). Clemens has won 2 more E.R.A. titles than Sandy Koufax, Matthewson, Walter Johnson or any other MLB pitcher whose name was not Lefty Grove (the standard expert choice for the greatest pitcher ever).

Clemens pitched in an atrociously, ridiculously bad pitcher's park this year, and kept his ERA under 2.00. His ERA, with adjustments made for that ballpark, was 121% better than the average NL pitcher. That's the 8th best Adjusted ERA figure since the end of the Dead Ball Era, which is preposterous for a guy who's 43 and not a knuckleballer.

Moreover, baseball insiders all say that for the last few weeks of the season and in the playoffs thus far, Clemens isn't even their best pitcher. OSWALT is. And I doubt I need tell you about Pettite's talent, experience under pressure, etc.

I know how bad the Astros' offense has been most of the year. It's why Clemens wasn't 21-2, or something like that, generating talk about the greatest season ever. And I know that even though Burke is a great story and has earned immortality, he's not exactly who you'd want to rely upon at this time. Also, of course, the Chisox have one extra home game.

With those things said, I'm fresh out of things to say in their favor. So please--and I'm not trying to be antagonistic or sarcastic--enlighten me. If you think the Chisox will win in 4 (I doubt you believe that), or even if you think they are clearly the better team, then you obviously think they should be big favorites in the Series.

Please tell me why. I will read, and open-mindedly consider, everything you have to say. I really want them to win. I'm a huge Clemens fan (obviously), but I think he's had enough moments of glory for, oh, about 500 careers, don't you? Petite's had his, too, and Burke has had one of the most glorious and historic moments in recent years. I have nothing invested in their winning, and want to see your team to win in 7, especially now that Rocket won't be starting Game 7.

Please tell me why I'm wrong and why the Chisox are supposed to be favored. I want to sit here and root for them with some degree of conviction and belief that they really are the better team. Please persuade me.

Baseball History Nut



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a tense low scoring series, both teams scraping for runs.... beating the cards in 6 was a big break for the astros who can now lead off their rotation with Clemens instead of having to use him a game 7


my pick...astros in 6



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I'm going with the Sox in 6. They are rested, hungry, and ready. And Guillen will whip his boys into shape.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunc7
White Sox in 4.


This is weird, but I agree with you. Go Sox Go!!!!



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I have to take the Astros in 6. They've done nothing but suprise me every step of the way, so i'm gonna let em suprise me again.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlsberg

Originally posted by shaunc7
White Sox in 4.


This is weird, but I agree with you. Go Sox Go!!!!



It is weird. It does feel good to agree with you on a least one thing. Enjoy the series.
Cheers



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
it's real hard to pick a favorite in this series.but since I'm an Athletics fan,my heart tells me to go with the Sox in a thrilling 7 games



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I'll say one thing in the Chisox' behalf: Even though they are on the road tonight, I think Houston needs the game more than the Sox do. True, Houston wouldn't be any more hurt by a 2-1 loss than the Sox. But if Clemens has a terrible night and the Astros lose 8-1, THAT could really devastate them.

Anyone wanna bet on the likelihood Clemens gives up 8 runs?

Baseball History Nut



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I also don't get James' rating Brett ahead of Mathews. If you look at that book closely, you'll see Mathews is ahead of Brett in ALL the categories James uses to make his rankings: career win shares; top 3 seasons in win shares; top 5 seasons in win shares; and, by a BIG margin, career average of win shares per 162 games.

Before I saw this stuff, I rated Brett #2 and Mathews #3, also, but now I cannot sincerely do that. James, it seems, is a hopeless lover of KC Royals. At catcher, he tells us that Darrell Porter (!) was the 18th greatest catcher ever, and that Sundberg was #32. Frank White, he says, is #31 at second base. Hal McRae, listed as a LF, is only #53, although I consider him better than any of the above except Brett and maybe White. And CF Amos Otis--playing the position where the first five spots are held by baseball gods--is at #22. Now he was a fine player, but how many people can say that, after Cobb and Speaker and Joe D and Mays and Mantle, they consider Amost Otis the 17th best CF of what's left?

So maybe that's why James tosses out ALL of his statistical evidence and puts Brett ahead of Mathews. And maybe that's why James' unabashed love affair with Honus Wagner causes him to put Wagner ahead of Cobb and Speaker, and also Mays, Mantle, Musial and Willams. Otherwise, I sure don't get it.

Baseball History Nut



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
OOPS. This post obviously belongs on the CLemente post, which has turned into a debate about Bonds, steroids, Honus Wagner and other matters.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Well, the atrocious umpiring goes on and on. Am I blind, or does everyone agree that the hit-by-pitch which was so pivotal tonight was pure fantasy?

Baseball History Nut



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
the game was 4-2 when i had to leave for work, sounds like i missed an exciting ending bad call and all



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Both games have been great thus far... and the controversy makes them even better. I believe the White Sox have the series... even if they had lost last night. The only games the Astro's have for sure is Oswalt... and maybe Pettite. I don't see the Astro's getting anymore than 2 wins. But great games so far.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I agree the Chisox would now be favorites, even if Houston had rightfully won that game last night. (And did you hear the pitiful the statement the umpires released through a spokesman?) With Clemens probably done for the year (forever?), Houston is hardly the same team, and that's true even if Clemens limps onto the field and courageously throws a few innings.

But if the Series were 1-1 right now, we'd at least be interested and feel there were real prospects either way. Anyone feel that way now?

I just H-A-T-E what the atrocious umpiring has done to this postseason, and the fan polls, in our "cops can do no wrong" society, show over 2/3 of the fans support these blind mice. I mean, how different is the ALCS without the ridiculous Pierzynski (sp.?) mess that enabled the Sox to tied the Series 1-1, and some of the other missed calls? How different is the NLCS if the umpires aren't apparently determined to make St. Louis pitchers hit a shoebox and let Houston pitchers pitch as though Eric Gregg were behind the plate?

(And please remember that, per my earlier post, I was rooting for the Chisox and Houston to get there. Just not THIS way.)

Now we have a World Series which should be 1-1 and exciting, but is 2-0 and Rocketless, and where "Ya REALLY gotta believe" if you think Houston's gonna win. I mean, anything's possible with these umps, but....

Baseball History Nut



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
P.S. As one Giants fan to another: "Controversy" may make games better, but a PROVABLY WRONG call at a critical moment of the game does not make it better. It RUINS it.

Baseball History Nut



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Well, tonight's atrocious miscall--though more understandable than the others--put a run in Houston's column, not Chicago's. And Houston still lost. All the same, if not for that phantom call last night, the Series would probably be 2-1 right now. And it looked to me like Oswalt was trying to overthrow the ball tonight, too, but I'm not gonna play psychic and claim to know what he'd have done different if the Series were (rightfully) even at 1-1.

Baseball History Nut



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The media, and guys like Harold Reynolds have been proclaiming, Chicago wins with smallball. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chicago's pitching has been it's biggest factor. But Chicago was 5th (out of 30), in hrs this year. And in the post season, they are way above their hr/ab. Chicago has scored 66 runs, 32 by homers. Chicago is winning with pitching and longball. Chicagos sb % rate during the year was a poor 67% (22nd in bb).



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunc7

Originally posted by Karlsberg

Originally posted by shaunc7
White Sox in 4.


This is weird, but I agree with you. Go Sox Go!!!!



It is weird. It does feel good to agree with you on a least one thing. Enjoy the series.
Cheers



Hey Shaunc7, Looks like us Canucks know more about baseball than we thought. We should have placed a wager.

Have a drink on me. Cheers.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join