Wednesday night MLB picks

For this evening (both from Matchbook):

TB Rays (-104), 104 to win 100.

The Rays and Os are the surprises of the AL East so far. We think one of them is for real. The Rays have a potent lineup, quality starters, a vastly improved defense, and a bullpen that has exceeded expectations thus far. Sonnanstine has good stuff; his less-than-stellar numbers in 2008 are the result of one tough outing against the Yanks. His four other starts were all above average. Albers, the Orioles starter, has been pitching from the bullpen for most of April. We see nothing in his past, or his stuff, to suggest that he'll maintain his impressive early numbers.


Tigers (+128), 100 to win 128.

A simple value play. The matchup sans A-Rod and Posada looks about even to us, so we'll take the underdog money.

Wednesday Afternoon

So close to getting that +220 on the Pirates last night. Another extra-innings loss. Just one for the early games:

Reds (Harang) -110 (Matchbook), 110 to win 100

Harang vs. Looper is no real contest. Reds have to start hitting better at some point, and the Cards will cool off. Why not today?

Good Riddance, Riley

So, the Miami Heat suck, and Pat Riley has decided to step down as coach. Is anybody surprised? Isn't this what he always does? Jumps into a coaching job when it looks like he can win a title without much effort, and jumps out when things go south. I can't stand this guy. Let me count the ways.

1. The Three-Peat trademark. Read this article for the full story, but basically, Riley trademarked the term "Three-Peat" (even though nobody really thinks he came up with it), and then had his lawyers go after a blogger who printed up "Three-Pete" T-shirts when the USC football team was going for 3 championships in a row ("Pete" for Coach Pete Carroll). I'm expecting a nasty phone call just for using the term in this paragraph.

2. Stealing the 1997 series from the Knicks. Now, this was right after he jumped ship from the Knicks to the Heat, costing the Heat a million dollars and their 1st round draft pick for tampering. Most Knicks fans believe that Riley ordered the Code Red (you're goddamn right I did!) that big P.J. Brown executed on little Charlie Ward in Game 5 of the 2nd round of the playoffs (when the Heat were down 3 games to 1), causing five Knicks players to be suspended for leaving the bench in Ward's defense. Because a team has to have at least 9 active players, Patrick Ewing, Allen Houston, and Ward were suspended for Game 6, and Larry Johnson and John Starks were suspended for Game 7. Of course, the Heat won the last 3 games of the series and advanced. This was much worse than what happened in the Suns/Spurs series last year, but nobody really talks about it anymore. The leftover animosity from all of these events culminated in the fight between former teammates Alonzo Mourning and Larry Johnson in the 1998 playoffs (you remember, the one where Jeff Van Gundy was ridiculously hanging on to Mourning's leg like a poodle in heat).

3. The Double Screwing of Stan Van Gundy. And this guy was supposedly his friend! First, when Shaq is just about to return from an injury and it looks like Pat can add another easy title to his resume, he forces Van Gundy out of his job, takes over himself, and takes all the credit for the championship. Then, when Stan later gets offered the Orlando job, Riley insists that Stan's contract with the Heat has not expired yet, and forces the Magic to give the Heat a draft pick in return for releasing SVG. Are you kidding me? With a friend like Pat, I'd rather just have enemies.

Riley's retirement couldn't have come early enough for me. Unfortunately, knowing Pat, he'll be back. I can imagine him sitting at home right now trying to figure out how to get rid of Phil Jackson or Doc Rivers just in time for the Finals. We haven't heard the end of this jerk - there are still a few people out there he hasn't screwed yet.

Tuesday Picks

That's more like it. Good day yesterday. There aren't many games jumping out at me today. Just two baseball plays that I like. Lines from Matchbook.

Pirates (Snell) +220, 100 to win 220

Same play that was rained out yesterday.

Reds (Cueto) +100, 100 to win 100

Cueto is going to have some growing pains, but Pineiro is awful and I like the Reds hitters better. I think the Reds are slightly better in starting pitcher, batting lineup, and bullpen, and I'm getting them as an underdog. Sounds good to me.

Monday, Monday

Let's forget this weekend ever happened. Needless to say, the picks didn't go my way. But, still on the plus side, so can't complain too much. My blog partner is still MIA after running off to have fun for the weekend, so it's still just me for today. If I get two out of the four MLB picks, I'll be a happy guy. All lines from Matchbook.

MLB

Yankees (Mussina) +105, 100 to win 105

Even with Mussina clearly not the pitcher he used to be, with the Yanks offense behind him against the kid coming up from the minors, I'll take him as the underdog

Pirates (Snell) +218, 100 to win 218

If you're going to go against Johan, you like to do it early in the season as he is a relatively slow starter. Snell is quality pitcher, the Pirates hit lefties well and have had some success against Santana, and we're getting a HUGE number.

Reds (Arroyo) +135, 100 to win 135

Bronson Arroyo is not as bad as he has performed so far this year - his BABIP is a staggering .408 so far. I'm not sold on Wellemeyer or the Cards offense as this big a favorite.

Astros (Sampson) +176, 100 to win 176

Another huge number. Sampson has been somewhat unlucky this year, and the D-Backs have been hitting over their heads all season. At this price, I'm willing to take a chance on Sampson and the Houston hitters performing more in line with their past performance tonight.


NBA

Lakers -4.5 +105, 100 to win 105

I haven't seen an ounce of heart from the Nuggets in this series. What a waste of talent. I guess it's a lot easier to say your team quit than to exert some effort on defense. Pathetic. Bring out the brooms.

Sunday Picks

I'm going to have to write a post about all the ball-busting ways to lose a bet. Yesterday, the Astros fall in the bottom of the 9th, and then in the later game, Giants starter Kevin Correia gets injured in the very first inning and leaves the game. At least Gabbard made it to the 2nd inning on Patriots Day before getting hurt. Picking up the pieces today with 2 baseball picks and 2 in the NBA:

MLB

Braves (Smoltz) -117 (Matchbook), 117 to win 100

Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like an awfully short number for Smoltz vs. Figueroa (who? exactly). Braves hitting much better than the Mets, and Smoltz has been brilliant lately.


Orioles (Guthrie) +120 (WSEX), 100 to win 120

I think the wrong team is favored in this one, even with the White Sox playing at home. Orioles hitters own Contreras. Guthrie pitches well on the road, and very well in day games. Take the plus number.


NBA

Spurs ML +150 (WSEX), 50 to win 75

Over the last five years, seven teams have gone into Game 4 at home down 0-3 in a first-round series. Six out of seven times, that team lost Game 4 and got swept. Although the Suns are probably better than the average first-round sweep victim, I'm taking the nice number and banking on the Spurs desire to end this series quickly to give themselves time to rest up for the Jazz in the second round.


Hornets +5.5 (Matchbook), 55 to win 50

I know the home team is consisently winning in this matchup, but the Mavs never seemed to put the game away in Game 3 until the very end. In a very even matchup, without the urgency of avoiding going down 0-3 that the Mavs had in the last game, I think the Hornets can at least stay within this number, if not win outright.

Separated at Birth?

Is this Lama Su from Star Wars - Episode II .............. or Raptors forward Chris Bosh?

Saturday, In The Park

I think it was the 4th of July. You're lucky you only had to read that and not hear me sing it. On to the picks:

MLB

Astros +112 (WSEX), 100 to win 112

Oswalt as an underdog again. Astros against a righty. Not much to think about here.


Giants +107 (Matchbook), 100 to win 107

Very quietly, the Giants are putting together a nice stable of young arms - Cain, Lincecum, Sanchez, and today, Correia. Happy to go against Belisle tonight.


NBA

Raptors -3 (WSEX), 55 to win 50

Toronto didn't put Calderon in the starting lineup after all. They're probably trying to pump up Ford's trade value. That's the only reason I can think of. Otherwise, they're just stupidly stubborn. Either way, going small-ball with Moon starting instead of Nesterovic put some life into the offense, and I think that carries over into this afternoon's game. Magic not yet elite enough or experienced enough to overcome the Raptors' homecourt advantage today.

Friday Night Educated Guesses

Grover is away from computers for a few days, so this weekend all the blame or glory (usually blame) falls on me. I told him to prepare himself for the prospect of a blog record of -800 or so when he returns. On to the picks:

MLB

The Yankees game was going as planned last night, with the Yanks and Hughes taking a 3-0 lead in the top of the 3rd. Unfortunately, it started raining right about then, and when the game resumed, there was some chump named Ohlendorf on the mound for the Yanks. Mr. Ohlendorf then proceeded to give up 78 hits in a row, with Girardi sitting on his hands in the dugout, apparently unaware that the rules actually allow you to substitute another pitcher. Then, after the Yankees catch back up, Joba Chamberlain takes the loss in the 9th inning (let's hear you talk some shit now, Hank.). A frustrating game. On to tonight:


Diamondbacks (Johnson) +104 (Matchbook), 100 to win 104

I'm still not believing the hype on Randy Wolf. The BABIP numbers show he's been slightly lucky this year, and he's had the good fortune to pitch two of his starts in spacious Petco Park and one other against the light-hitting Giants. In his only other start, he gave up 4 earned runs in 6 innings to tonight's opponent, the D-Backs. Padres are hitting a dreadful .168 versus lefties so far this year. I want the Big Unit tonight. Wait, that didn't sound right......


Giants (Sanchez) +133 (Matchbook), 100 to win 133

Break up the Giants! They've won two in a row - next stop, World Series! OK, I'm going a little overboard, and I'm still kicking myself for not playing Lincecum last night after thinking about it all day. But, after Sanchez's horrible performance in his first start, he has been phenomenal in his last three, with an ERA of 1.69 and WHIP of 1.19 in those games. I like Harang (heck, he's on my fantasy team), but I'm taking the home underdog in a game which looks like a very close, low-scoring affair.

NBA

After writing the post below about teams in the must-win Game 3 situation, you should have expected to see me playing a couple of them.

Mavericks -6 (WSEX), 110 to win 100

Suns -6.5 (WSEX), 55 to win 50

NBA Game 3 - Winning the Must-Win Game

On the radio the other day, I heard former Pacers star Reggie Miller say that a team that loses the first two games of a playoff series on the road always wins Game 3 at home. This comment made be curious about how often that team, commonly said to be in a "must-win" situation, actually does win that game, or more importantly for our purposes, how often that team covers the spread. Well, after looking at an admittedly small sample size, it appears that while that team doesn't always win, it does cover with significant frequency.

Over the past five years (2003 through 2007), this situation, where a team is returning home for Game 3 down 0-2 in a first-round playoff series, has appeared 25 times. The home team has covered the spread 18 times out of those 25, a win percentage of 72%. The winning percentage becomes 75% if you remove the Cavs/Wiz series last year, which was skewed by the injuries of the Wizards two best players prior to the series. If you wanted an even bigger number, you could try and come up with some reason to disqualify the Grizzlies, as they are responsible for 2 of the 7 losses, but there's no real justification for that - they're just incompetent. So far in 2008, the home team in this situation is 2-0 SU and ATS after the Raptors and Wizards won easily last night (Rockets were in the opposite situation, down 0-2 and playing Game 3 on the road, but still won and covered).

I was initially surprised by the results. I had expected that the public would over-value the team in the "must-win" situation, leading to over-inflated lines on the Game 3 home team and, as a result, a significant number of covers by the road team in that game. However, it appears that the opposite phenomenon is taking place, i.e. after the higher seeds take care of business at home, the linesmakers are forced to over-rate those higher seeds in Game 3 in order to get close to equal money on each side. Presumably, the average bettor, who believes the higher seed to be the superior team anyway (and, generally, that's probably true), believes even more strongly in the higher seed's superiority after watching them win the first two games. Or, at least, the recreational bettor is not allowing more than a few points for the home-court advantage gained by the lower seed in Game 3.

Between the advantage of home court and the extra effort produced by a combination of the desire to win and the desire to avoid the embarrassment of three straight losses (and for 6 of the 7 must-win Game 3 losers, an eventual series sweep), these teams have consistently outplayed the public perception. In this year's playoffs, there are still four teams left facing must-win Game 3 situations in the first-round (Mavs, Suns, Hawks, Nuggets). Do your homework, but don't be surprised if at least three of these teams cover this weekend.

Thursday Night Baseball Pick

Well, that Oakland game couldn't have really gone any better for us. It's always nice when you make play based on how bad you think the opposing pitcher will be, and then that pitcher can't even make it out of the first inning, getting tagged with 6 earned runs in the process. I went back and forth over whether just to call it a day after such a good result, but we decided to play one more:

Yankees -102 (Matchbook), 102 to win 100

That's a great price for the Yankees in almost any situation. Gavin Floyd's lucky start to the season has given us an irresistable line toinght. Floyd's BABIP is a ridiculously low .135 this season, which makes him one of the luckiest bastards in the league. Expect his 1.40 ERA to rise dramatically in the coming weeks, to the point where folks start to remember that his ERA last year was 5.27. The year before that? A whopping 7.29. Don't be fooled by the hot start. Also, don't be fooled by Hughes' poor numbers so far. His BABIP is .417, which makes him one of the UN-luckiest bastards in the league. Take the cheap discount on the Yanks.

A Brief Political Aside

Sometimes worlds collide. And today, those worlds are internet gambling and politics.

Cheers to Barney Frank and Ron Paul for trying to reverse one of the silliest laws ever passed. If a left-wing homosexual from Massachusetts and a batshit-crazy Republican/libertarian doctor from Texas can agree on something .... ummm, I don't even know how to finish that sentence.

Thursday Night NBA Pick

Nice win for the Spurs the other night. Hoping to keep the good vibes rolling with tonight's basketball pick:

Raptors -4 (WSEX), 110 to win 100

"Finally!" That's probably what you heard in the Toronto area when Coach Sam Mitchell announced that there would be changes in the Raptors starting line-up for Game 3. Most significantly, it is believed that he will start Jose Calderon over T.J. Ford at point guard. This should've happened a long time ago, but the Raptors have a lot of money tied up in Ford, and traded Charlie Villanueva to get him (at least, everybody thought Charlie had a lot of potential at the time), so it's understandable that management wanted to give T.J. every opportunity to succeed. Calderon has clearly been the better player, and facing an 0-2 deficit already, the team appears ready to give him his starting spot. Mitchell may also find a place for 3-point shooting Jason Kapono in the starting line-up, either starting him at the 2 or 3 instead of Parker or Bargnani, or maybe going small-ball by moving Bosh to the 5 and using Nesterovic off the bench. With the travel and the 2-0 cushion, I just don't see the Magic busting out to a 20-point lead after the first quarter like they did in Game 1 (or 17-point lead in Game 2). Raptors will not fall way behind early like that in front of the home crowd.

Thursday Afternoon Baseball Picks

A clean sweep 3-0 last night, thanks to a couple of nail-biting extra-innings wins. We'll take it. One baseball pick for Thursday afternoon:

A's (Smith) -115 (Matchbook), 115 to win 100

The BABIP analysis (see post below) would indicate that Smith has been a little lucky so far this season, and Liriano has been a little unlucky. We agree that it's unlikely Smith will finish the season with an ERA of 3.00, but we don't think luck is the most significant explanation for Liriano's struggles. Liriano hasn't just been unlucky on the balls put in play, he's also hurting himself by walking 5 batters a game and putting potential runs on the bases (K/BB is 7/10). He had not pitched a game since September, 2006, and it appears he's not 100% healthy and/or is still rusty from the long layoff. A's have been hitting better than the Twins lately, and are at home, so we'll take them as the slim favorite today.

Run Support, Over/Unders and Micah Owings

This post on umpbump.com, linked on Deadspin, got me thinking about our friend Mr. Owings and the possibility that his hitting may be a means by which to gain an edge on Average Joe Bettor. Could it be that having Owings in the lineup essentially changes the Arizona Diamondbacks into an American League team, with no "hole" in the lineup, once every five days? More importantly, does Vegas account for this when it sets moneylines and over/under totals?

In 2007, Owings ranked 27th out of 70 NL pitchers who threw at least 100 innings in run support. However, most of the guys ahead of him threw in hitters' parks, or were backed by potent lineups, or both. The D-backs ranked 14th of 16 teams in runs scored last year, edging only the Nats and the Giants. Not a single Nat, Giant or D-Back got better run support than Owings.

How did this pan out in Vegas? By my count, the Over hit 16 times in Owings starts in 2007, and the Under hit 11 times. A small sample size to be sure, but it suggests that the lines perhaps failed to account for Owings' prowess at the dish.

So far in 2008, the Under has hit 3 times during Owings starts, and the Over has hit once. However, I think this is mostly a result of his lights-out start to the season. Owings sports a 2.42 ERA and a 0.88 WHIP. His .210 BABIP would suggest that he won't sustain that sort of performance. We'll be keeping an eye on Over/Unders in Owings' starts, as well as the value on the Diamondbacks in these games. There may be less value then we'd like there, due to the D-backs' hot start at the plate and in the standings in 2008, but it's worth tracking.

Wednesday Baseball Picks

Tough extra-innings loss on the Cardinals game yesterday, but the NBA pick cashed nicely. Here are the three baseball picks we could come to an agreement on today, all lines from Matchbook:


Angels (Garland) +164, 100 to win 164

Pitching matchup is pretty even, especially when you compare BABIP for this year so far (see BABIP post below). Slight hitting edge to the Red Sox, but not enough to justify a line this huge. We'll happily take the value play here.


Cubs (Hill) -101, 101 to win 100

With a lefty on the mound for both teams, the Cubs should have a big advantage offensively, in addition to the pitching advantage of Rich Hill over Morales. Cubs hitting .316 in their last 10 games vs. left-handed pitchers, while Rockies only .221. Cubs get ahead early in this one and hold on down the stretch.


Giants (Cain) +135, 100 to win 135

I read this article on a well-known sports betting information site, which purports to list the best and worst starting pitchers for the month of April. Cain is listed among the worst such pitchers. However, the only criteria used in compiling this list is the win-loss records for these pitchers' teams in their starts over the past 3 seasons, which is completely ludicrous. It would bad enough if the author (an "expert" handicapper) just used each pitcher's win-loss record over that span, but to use the teams' records makes it even worse. According to this article, if a pitcher didn't get much run support in several April games, or had a defense behind him that committed a lot of errors, or a bullpen which blew several of his leads, that pitcher would be a terrible pitcher in April. What if a pitcher was with a different team now? A bigger-hitting team with good defense and a reliable bullpen? Or, if the pitcher's team had improved significantly over the years (e.g. Zach Greinke, also one of the "worst" who actually has decent stats)? If the pitcher's stats were great under those circumstances, would he still be a lousy bet in April? It's ridiculous. Incidentally, Cain's ERA in April the past 3 seasons is 3.23 and his WHIP is 1.05, hardly the numbers put up by the worst pitchers in the league. You can pay money for the author's picks, by the way.

As for today's matchup, the Giants are hitting better than the Padres, have the better pitcher on the mound, and are getting the underdog price. Easy decision for us.

Tuesday Night NBA

Ugh. Lost the baseball game in the 12th inning. We couldn't agree on any baseball games tonight, but I'm playing one in the NBA:

Spurs -1.5 (WSEX), 110 to win 100

I think the public is out there thinking that the Suns will "turn it up a notch" tonight after barely missing out on the victory in Game 1. I'm thinking just the opposite - the Spurs will be on their game from the opening tip after the close call in the first game. It's hard to imagine that we won't see some sort of letdown by the Suns after a loss like that. They gave it all they had, only to have the win ripped away from them at the end of regulation, and overtime, and double overtime....you get the idea.

The Cards (?)

We don't think they're for real either, but for the second day in a row they've got a favorable pitching matchup against their division rivals from Milwaukee.

Cardinals +109 (WSEX) 109 to win 100.

Sure, we wrote yesterday about how you shouldn't read too much into hot starts. You can rest assured that Lohse isn't going to be winning the NL CY Young in 2008, but his numbers so far aren't all luck. He's shown decent control and has yet to allow a home run. The Brewers' lineup is stronger, but we'll take the better starter and the better bullpen when it comes with underdog money.

Patriot's Night Pick

OK, there's no such thing as Patriot's Night, but you've gotta cut us some slack after this morning's game. A lot of sportsbooks will let you list your pitchers, such that your wager gets cancelled if either of the pitchers changes before the game starts. But, unfortunately, there aren't any sportsbooks who will cancel your bet after your starter gets injured in the 2nd inning, which is what happened to Gabbard this morning, right after we raved about his performance so far this season. Of course, a couple of innings later, his lame replacements give up 8 innings in the 4th and 5th, and that was the end of that. Harsh, but we'll take that bet every single time. Just one baseball play that we could agree on for Monday night:

Cardinals +102 (Matchbook), 100 to win 102

Wainwright pitching much, much better than Villanueva. Brewers hitting only .197 against RHP in their last 10 games. We'll take the underdog.

Patriot's Day Pick

Rangers +160 (Betus), 100 to win 160

The kind of pick that we love - an underdog inflated due to non-factors like the fact that it's "Patriot's Day" in Boston and such. Red Sox have been hitting well, but the Rangers are very dangerous against right-handed pitchers, especially guys who are struggling like Buchholz. Gabbard has pitched much better than Buchholz, 2.41 ERA so far vs. 6.75 for Buchholz, and those numbers don't appear to be a fluke, as their BABIP (batting average on balls in play) is virtually identical (.317 for Gabbard, .333 for Buchholz - see Grover's post on BABIP below). Luck doesn't explain the difference here, or at least, it appears that they have both been a little unlucky in the way the ball has bounced, making Gabbard's performance even more remarkable. We'll take the Rangers lineup vs. a struggling RHP, especially where the line is inflated by Red Sox Nation. Additionally, if you watched the Celtics game last night, you saw half of the Sox lineup sitting courtside (Ortiz, Pedroia, Youkilis, etc.). That game wasn't over until after 11 PM, and you know there were some post-game festivities, so we don't expect the Sox to be 100% fresh for an early game today.

On BABIP, Small Samples, and Overreactions

Success in sports wagering requires you to use knowledge that the average bettor does not have. Unfortunately, most of us do not have access to advance injury reports or friends who are trainers for professional teams. Statistics are the only tool we have to gain an inside edge; or, more accurately, knowing which statistics are useful and which are misleading.

The early weeks of the season present a great opportunity to take advantage of Average Joe Bettor's overreaction to early season trends. Often times a pitcher will get "hit hard" a few times early or throw a couple of gems, and the public will decide that that pitcher is off to a rough start, or a hot start, and the lines may adjust accordingly. But more often than not, the pitchers' results will regress to their usual numbers by season's end.

How can you tell if a pitcher has really improved or regressed, or whether they've simply been lucky or unlucky in their first few starts? A useful tool is BABIP, or Batting Average on Balls in Play. As you may know, a few years ago, a guy by the name of Voros McCracken did a study of pitching performance and found, for the most part, that pitchers have very little control over whether balls put in play result in outs or hits. Pretty much the only significant things a pitcher can control, McCracken found, are walks, strikeouts, and homers. The article can be seen here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878

The article has been validated by numerous studies since then, although there are a number of "caveats" for knuckleballers, extreme fly ball and groundball pitchers, and few other things. These exceptions are not important here. The larger point is that by looking at a pitcher's BABIP over his first few starts, you can figure out if he's truly improved or regressed, or has simply been lucky or unlucky. BABIP usually averages out to something in the .290s. If a pitcher has an early season BABIP well above that, his early-season troubles may well prove irrelevant. If he has a very low BABIP, his hot start may turn out to be nothing more than a couple of fortunate outings.

Let's use one example from last week. Prior to his most recent start on April 16, Roy Oswalt was generally perceived to be struggling mightily this year. He was 0-3 with a preposterously high ERA. Due in part to these preceived struggles (as well as past issues with the Phillies), Oswalt was actually an underdog going against the Phillies, who were sending Kyle Kendrick to the mound. This only makes sense if you assume, as many betters did, that 2008 Oswalt was not the Oswalt we all know and love. But a quick look at his numbers showed us that Oswalt's horrid start was in part due to bad luck. He had a ridiculous BABIP somewhere in the neighborhood of .450 prior to that game. He had given up 5 HRs, but 4 came in one game- a sample size too small to be relevant. He had struck out 12 and only walked 2 in those first three games. Was he an ace through his first three games? Not really. But he was also very, very unlucky, and that played a part in making him an underdog vs. Kyle Kendrick. Read the last part of that sentence again. Last week you could get positive money on Roy Oswalt facing Kyle Kendrick. I'll take that any day of the week. And I did. Oswalt went seven strong innings, allowed just one run, and the Astros won despite a surprisingly strong start for Kendrick.

It appears that we only had a one-game grace period before the public caught up, as Oswalt is starting today against the Padres and is -140 at last check. But it pays to keep your eyes peeled for "hot" or "cold" starts, to use BABIP to figure out whether they're really hot or cold, or just a matter of pitching luck.

NBA Playoffs - Day 2 - Part Deux

I forgot to factor into my analysis on the Nuggets pick that Iverson might purposely get 2 technical fouls and ejected with 2 or 3 minutes left trailing by only 11. After the 2 free throws, and the removal of a huge offensive threat for Denver, the Lakers cruised to an easy cover. After watching the game, I'm still not convinced that the Lakers are all they're made out to be. Kobe and Pau are great, but if either has an off night, there's not much else to fall back on. If the Nuggets had made even a token effort on defense, or concentrated on their free throws, that game could have been very close.

In the late game:

Hawks +15.5 (Bodog), 55 to win 50

Another public fade. The Celtics are the feel-good story of the season, but this is a huge number for a playoff game. Mike Bibby and Joe Johnson form a nice backcourt duo for the Hawks, Rondo is untested, and hopefully the tempo stays at a pace which allows Atlanta to stay within the inflated number.

NBA Playoffs - Day 2

Almost suffered the dreaded underdog overtime loss with the Suns yesterday. I'll probably have a whole rant about that when it happens. Today:

Nuggets +8.5 (everywhere), 55 to win 50

Fading the public and their Lakers love. I know about Denver's defense, but they have a ton of firepower and some good players off the bench, so I think they keep it closer than the line would suggest.

Sunday Baseball

Getting a late start today, and haven't heard from my partner, so here are this afternoon's plays, with limited explanations (I've done the homework, I just don't have time for all the typing today). All lines from Matchbook:

Reds -130, 130 to win 100

A pretty low number for Harang, especially with the Brewers lame hitting recently and Gallardo coming off an injury and some poor rehab performances.


Braves -105, 105 to win 100

Pitchers fairly even, but a hitting advantage for the home team.


Rays -112, 112 to win 100

Jackson pitching very well this year. Rays hitting over .300 vs. lefties.


Royals +123, 100 to win 123

I like the Hochevar kid. Another pretty even matchup, and I'm taking the underdog number.

NBA Playoffs - Day 1

I'm going to take it easy on any Game 1 bets, because I like to get a feel for how teams are playing before I get myself out on too much of a limb. Two plays for today:

Suns +4.5 (Bookmaker), 55 to win 50

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.


Mavericks +5 (Matchbook), 55 to win 50

After the stunning first round exit last year, Dirk and crew will have the Eye of the Tiger in the early going. How's that for detailed statistical analysis? Grover's not going to like it.....

- I think at least one of these underdogs snatches away home-court advantage today, so playing the moneyline on each would make sense as well.

- Did anyone else watching the Cavs-Wiz game hear Holly Rowe's sideline report in the first quarter? She said she asked Wally Szczerbiak about his lousy shooting since being traded to Cleveland. According to Rowe, Wally's response was something to the effect of, "Yeah, the shots haven't been falling, but hopefully my defense has been helping the team." That's priceless. Ladies and gentlemen, Wally Szczerbiak, defensive stopper. If the Cavs make it back to the Finals, at least they know they have somebody who can shut down Kobe.

Friday Night MLB

THAT'S the way to kick off the blog......with a loss. But, if you told us before the game that the final score was going to be 3-2 (but didn't say which team would win), I think we would make that bet every time. If you could get close games like this every time you take an underdog, and come out on the winning side about half of the time, you would obviously make out pretty well. Two plays for tonight:

Giants +130 (WSEX), 100 to win 130

Grover loves him some Cain. When he sees a young, relatively unheralded pitcher who has very nice stats, but a 7-16 win-loss record from last year, my partner in crime starts to drool. The Giants didn't give Cain a lot of run support last year, and they won't this year, but we still like this play. Even a team as bad as the Giants is going to notch 65-70 wins this year, which is a lot of underdog winners, so the trick is to pick the spots where they're most likely to prevail. In limited instances, the Cardinals hitters have not been able to hit Cain, and sooner or later, this mirage of excellence coming out of St. Louis will fade.


Indians -113 (WSEX), 113 to win 100

We think Cliff Lee is for real this season. He's still a little underrated so far this year, even though he has performed brilliantly (0.61 ERA), because of his dreadful performance last season. Last year's results, when Lee was suffering with an abdominal strain, is not indicative of his ability when healthy. Don't get me wrong, his ERA is not going to end the year below 1.00, but with the recreational bettor looking at last year's stats on Lee, it allows us to get this line at a bargain price. Liriano has obviously not fully recovered from his health issues, and the Indians hitters should get back on track tonight against the lefty pitcher's weak offerings.

NBA Series Odds

The series lines for Round 1 of the NBA playoffs came out yesterday. The lines will vary depending on your book of course, but here are the first lines I saw Thursday afternoon:

EAST

1 Boston -6000 (some books just have this O.T.B.)
8 Atlanta +4000

2 Detroit -1100
7 Philadelphia +900

3 Orlando -300
6 Toronto +270

4 Cleveland -125
5 Washington +115


WEST

1 L.A. Lakers -600
8 Denver +400

2 New Orleans -161
7 Dallas +151

3 San Antonio -160
6 Phoenix +140

4 Utah -200
5 Houston +180


Gut Reactions

- Houston gets home-court advantage even they are the lower seed (Jazz won their division but have a worse record). As the Jazz are not a strong road team (17-24 SU and ATS), the Rockets' one-game edge in the regular season standings could prove significant, if they can overcome Alston's injury in the first couple of games.

- Spurs players seem confident that they can just "turn it on" for the playoffs after appearing to sleepwalk through parts of the season, but I'm not 100% convinced. Suns have revenge on their minds and could be the play here.

- Nuggets can't beat the Lakers in the series, but with their considerable scoring ability, they may able to stay within any inflated numbers on a game-by-game basis (FYI, Lakers -8.5 in Game 1).

- Mavericks are an interesting underdog. No question, the Hornets have played better this year, but Dallas has a significant advantage in the experience department, which counts in the playoffs.

- The trendy upset pick looks like it's going to be the Washington Wizards. I was hoping to play them myself at +140 or more. With the line opening at +115, and I'm seeing it now +100 at a lot of places, I'm not sure there's a ton of value in that play anymore.

Back tomorrow with any series or individual game bets we're playing.

Afternoon Delight (4/18/08)

OK, the first baseball pick of the new blog. That doesn't mean it's any better than the future picks, just the first. For record-keeping purposes, we're going to use round numbers rather than something like 1 unit to win 1.27 units. Here we go:

Pirates (Snell) +127 (WSEX) , 100 to win 127

If you're going to play the Pirates against the Cubs, you want to get in there in today's situation, when a lefty is on the mound for Chicago and a righty for Pittsburgh. Snell has had a steady start to his season, while Hill has already been temporarily yanked from the rotation once this year because of his shaky performances. Pirates hitters love to see left-handed pitchers, and to get to face a guy struggling with his confidence like Hill is an extra bonus. Plus, when you have an unloved team like the Pirates facing a presumed World Series contender like the Cubs, the line will almost always be shaded a little toward the contender, giving you extra value on the underdog. In today's game, the Pirates get another break in that Alfonso Soriano is on the DL for the Cubs, because Soriano has owned Snell in their few confrontations - .500 batting average, 1.821 OPS (not a misprint), with 3 home runs and 5 RBI in only 12 at bats. With that firepower sitting on the bench, we think Pittsburgh has a slight edge today, and we'll take the underdog every time in that situation.

An Introduction

Hello and Welcome to Against All Odds, wherein a Jew and a Redneck will discuss wagering on sports and other vital issues of our time. We have been exchanging emails for our friends to read for some time now, and we decided recently to try to find a slightly larger audience. Before we start, we thought it would be a good idea to share a little about ourselves and our philosophy on wagering.

We are both attorneys who do well enough to put a roof over our heads and food on our tables. For us, sports wagering is a hobby, not a job. We do it for fun. That said, winning is fun. It's fun to be right, of course, and it's also not bad to have a few extra dollars in your bank account. So we try to always bet with discipline. The reasons behind every move we make will be explained on this page. And feel free to share your thoughts with us. We're egotistical pricks, but we're not so smug as to think there's nothing left for us to learn.

Our System: We do not believe in systems. If there was a single system that was guaranteed to work, there wouldn't be a tacky city in the Nevada desert with giant hotels and fancy restaurants and plastic women built on gambling losses. That said, we do have a few guiding principles:

(1) Conventional Wisdom is the road to ruin. We generally try to go against popular opinion when making picks. However, we won't do so automatically. We're not gonna run out and throw down money on the Hawks to beat the Celtics in the first round of the NBA playoffs this year just because everyone is saying the Celtics can't lose. We only bet against what we perceive as "conventional wisdom" when there is a sound statistical basis for doing so. See Grover's forthcoming post on pitchers' BABIP and misleading early season trends for an example of this.

(2) Fan is short for fanatic. Sports are fun for us, not a business. We both have teams we support. For Grover, it's the Washington DC-area teams and the UNC Tar Heels. For Hambone, it's Duke. Because fanatics by definition are emotional or irrational about their teams both in victory and in defeat, we do not wager or make recommendations when our teams are involved. Grover might think that Tyler Hansbrough is a Golden God, or that the Nationals will be lucky to win 60 games this year, but neither of those sentiments form the basis of a sound betting strategy.

(3) Baseball is best. Baseball is our preferred sport because it lends itself to less variation. We can almost always find a game or two a day out of the 10-15 every day, and if we play 200 or more games in the course of a season, the good and bad breaks tend to even out, and the sport becomes, dare we say it, predictable. It is also the sport in which difficult-to-measure variables like team chemistry and attitude play the least role, and therefore its results are the easist to predict over the long term.

(4) We're here to win. Look, betting is fun. If we were all about overcoming the house edge in all aspects of life, we wouldn't ever play the Hard Eight at the Craps table. But this isn't a vacation, and there's no trashy cougars walking around distracting us with watered-down booze and garish outfits with flesh-colored nylons. So we'll try to avoid giving away more to the house then is absolutely necessary. This means shopping for lines, avoiding futures for the most part, and never ever playing parlays.

That's all for now. Thanks for stopping by. And if anyone wants to explain how the heck we can make any money off a blog, we're all ears.