At least, I think that's how Dan Le Batard translates into English. On PTI just now, discussing Cliff Lee, Dan The Bastard just said that if were betting against Cliff Lee this season, you would have been wrong 22 out of 24 times. Wrong. His record is 22-2, but that's only in games where he got a decision. If you bet against him every time he started, your win-loss record would have actually been 24-6, so he should have said you would have been wrong 24 out of 30 times. Sounds picky, but it's the difference between winning bets against him 8.3% of the time and winning 20% of the time. I can't even use a calculator, but that seems statistically significant to me. Mostly, I had Cliff Lee on the brain since we came very close to posting a pick on Lee and the Indians tonight, but decided against it at the last minute. Probably a guaranteed winner now.
1 comment:
It also conviently leaves off the fact that most of those 24 times he would have been right would have been far less profitable, on average, than his losses the six times he got it wrong. Because, you know, Lee was heavily favored in most of his starts.
Le Batard, however, is not as idiotic as people who brag about their winning percentages in baseball wagering at Covers. Yeah, genius, I could hit 75% if I bet on nothing but Beckett, Lackey and Zambrano starts, too. Doesn't mean I'd make any money doing it.
Post a Comment