2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[User Name]

I'm just saying: "2011 World Series: Red Sox at Philies".

 

Analysts got it right!

[seabeachfred]

Ben is going to workout in the players facility so he'll be done before Happy Hour.

 

Wow!!!!! Look who is turning into a real nasty hard ass!!!!! Love it 700. Give them hell. With Pumpsie away for a week, Elk coming on here intermittently and Muggah playing a good guy role for awhile, it looks like you are taking the lead in the tough guy department. The breakfast and shoe shine this morning was a classic. You know, whether he is under orders or not, the guy really is nothing more than either a flunky or a patsy, take your pick. At least, though, we now know the cards have been dealt and we have to play the hand we drew.

 

You've got a lot of your dad's Brooklyn in you. Keep it up.

[seabeachfred]

Ha yeah basically. At least on the bench he may not be as harmful.. I guess that remains to be seen.

 

Him off of third base and Francona out on his ear means we might actually win some games this season that we usually lost when those two were on the loose. Another point worth mentioning is that we now know who is going to pretty much be on our roster and it will be our business to see if we can cobble up a scenario where somehow someway we find a way to win the division this season. Hard I know RSNC84, but it is what it is. Maybe this season Dame Fortune will smile our way. She sure as hell hasn't the past three seasons.

[User Name]

Murphy's Law must have its limits after all.

[seabeachfred]

Yes' date=' Aviles with Punto as the back up.[/quote']

 

Aviles is a good player, can hit and is a hard nosed ballplayer. He will do the job if this trade goes through. It could mean (I said COULD mean) that with Marco traded we would have some extra cash to MAYBE????? get a pitcher? We should all stay tuned. I will say this----Aviles will outhit Scutaro this season and field just as well even though I will miss Marco IF!!!!!

[iortiz]

I'm just saying: "2011 World Series: Red Sox at Philies".

 

Analysts got it right!

 

I think you are missing the point. In paper those teams are above us. Nobody is guaranteeing that they will make the POs. Those are simply probabilities and how the experts see the panorama. In the end, the games must be played. If you think that we are above or at the same level that LAA, TEX or NY are right now, fine, but you are against almost all "experts" (idiots) are saying.

[User Name]

Texas yes, the Angels have the analysts' divided. Some say they are overrated, some say they are a top team in MLB. You are choosing scenario two because it suits your argument.

 

Notice that i am arguing specifically the Angels, not other teams. Who's missing the point here?

[iortiz]

Texas yes, the Angels have the analysts' divided. Some say they are overrated, some say they are a top team in MLB. You are choosing scenario two because it suits your argument.

 

Notice that i am arguing specifically the Angels, not other teams. Who's missing the point here?

 

Yes, I see LAA with more chances than us to make the POs.

[example1]

Newsflash: Most analysts and bookies are idiots.

 

Bookies are idiots? I mean, personally they might be idiots, but if by bookies you mean "oddsmakers" they are less likely to be inluenced by bias and their job depends on being right.

 

Vegas doesn't make its money by losing, so I will be very interested to see the revised odds when they come out.

[iortiz]

Bookies are idiots? I mean, personally they might be idiots, but if by bookies you mean "oddsmakers" they are less likely to be inluenced by bias and their job depends on being right.

 

Vegas doesn't make its money by losing, so I will be very interested to see the revised odds when they come out.

 

I agree.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if LAA ran as the #1 seeded in Vegas to win the AL just before the season starts.

[User Name]

Bookies are idiots? I mean, personally they might be idiots, but if by bookies you mean "oddsmakers" they are less likely to be inluenced by bias and their job depends on being right.

 

Vegas doesn't make its money by losing, so I will be very interested to see the revised odds when they come out.

 

Vegas doesn't make its money because of the positive predictions of oddsmakers, as they are usually wrong, they make their money because the system is rigged in their favor.

[a700hitter]

Bookies are idiots? I mean, personally they might be idiots, but if by bookies you mean "oddsmakers" they are less likely to be inluenced by bias and their job depends on being right.

 

Vegas doesn't make its money by losing, so I will be very interested to see the revised odds when they come out.

Exactly, Vegas odds at the beginning of the season will be the truest most objective evaluation of the strength of the Red Sox. The odds makers are unbiased, and they do make their living being right.

[iortiz]

Exactly' date=' [i']Vegas odds at the beginning of the season will be the truest most objective evaluation of the strength of the Red Sox.[/i] The odds makers are unbiased, and they do make their living being right.

 

Hell, in two lines you rest my point

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly' date=' Vegas odds at the beginning of the season will be the truest most objective evaluation of the strength of the Red Sox. The odds makers are unbiased, and they do make their living being right.[/quote']

 

Agreed that the Vegas oddsmakers are unbiased and very smart. As I understand it, though, their primary goal is to set odds that will make people bet in a certain way. They want the betting distributed so that the payoffs are equal on both sides. The classic case of the bookies getting burned was the second Steelers-Cowboys Super Bowl, when the spread moved from 3.5 to 4.5 during the week and the Steelers won by 4. The bookies ended up paying off a lot of people on both sides and taking a bath.

 

Speaking of which I think the spread on the Pats game has moved from 8.5 to 6.5, which means a lot of people were taking the Ravens and the bookies are now enticing people to take the Pats.

[jung]

Ravens + 8.5 would be hard to bet against.

[User Name]

Agreed that the Vegas oddsmakers are unbiased and very smart. As I understand it, though, their primary goal is to set odds that will make people bet in a certain way. They want the betting distributed so that the payoffs are equal on both sides. The classic case of the bookies getting burned was the second Steelers-Cowboys Super Bowl, when the spread moved from 3.5 to 4.5 during the week and the Steelers won by 4. The bookies ended up paying off a lot of people on both sides and taking a bath.

 

Speaking of which I think the spread on the Pats game has moved from 8.5 to 6.5, which means a lot of people were taking the Ravens and the bookies are now enticing people to take the Pats.

 

They get burned all the time. The only reason they can keep their margin of profit is by stacking the odds in their favor with their rules.

 

The point that can't be denied though, is that analysts are usually dead wrong. Every year they name a paper champion. Every year they fail miserably.

 

Unless iortiz can provide me evidence to the contrary, i'll stick to my guns thank you very much. A700's opinion (opinion being the key word here) doesn't make him right.

[Bellhorn04]

They get burned all the time. The only reason they can keep their margin of profit is by stacking the odds in their favor with their rules.

 

The point that can't be denied though, is that analysts are usually dead wrong. Every year they name a paper champion. Every year they fail miserably.

 

Unless iortiz can provide me evidence to the contrary, i'll stick to my guns thank you very much. A700's opinion (opinion being the key word here) doesn't make him right.

 

The preseason prognostications aren't worth s***, I totally agree there. Predicting pro sports with any consistency is impossible.

 

What I'm saying is that the oddsmakers aren't really trying to predict results, they're just setting lines for people to wager on.

[User Name]

The preseason prognostications aren't worth s***, I totally agree there. Predicting pro sports with any consistency is impossible.

 

What I'm saying is that the oddsmakers aren't really trying to predict results, they're just setting lines for people to wager on.

 

The lines aren't perfect though. Sometimes they're right down insane.

[jung]

The analysts are always to impressed with whatever team makes the most noise in the offseason without considering what was there to begin with. The Angels seem to be drawing the most attention in that regard this off season. It is like Albert is going bat 1,000 and CJ is going to pitch 10 complete game shutouts. Sure they are two big pieces but they can't do everything. I still think what it boils down to is that the Angels will do more damage in the West than they did last year and are a very viable WC contender because of it. To me the Angels create more of a problem for the Rays and the Sox than anybody else.

[a700hitter]

Agreed that the Vegas oddsmakers are unbiased and very smart. As I understand it, though, their primary goal is to set odds that will make people bet in a certain way. They want the betting distributed so that the payoffs are equal on both sides. The classic case of the bookies getting burned was the second Steelers-Cowboys Super Bowl, when the spread moved from 3.5 to 4.5 during the week and the Steelers won by 4. The bookies ended up paying off a lot of people on both sides and taking a bath.

 

Speaking of which I think the spread on the Pats game has moved from 8.5 to 6.5, which means a lot of people were taking the Ravens and the bookies are now enticing people to take the Pats.

Hence, the worse the team the longer the odds have to be to induce betting and the better teams give get lousy odds to discourage betting. The odds change during the season because the actual performances will differ from the original odds and they have to make sure that the betting is spread around. However, at the beginning of the season, the odds will tell you where your team stands on paper. If you don't think those guys crunch the numbers to come up with those odds, you are mistaken.

[a700hitter]

It appears that talks between the Rockies and Red Sox regarding Marco Scutaro are dormant, but Rob Bradford of WEEI.com writes that Boston's possible motivation for a move involving Scutaro would be to free up payroll. The club has reportedly expressed interest in White Sox starter Gavin Floyd and free agent outfielder Cody Ross, but neither move could be made unless a trade was made to offer budgetary relief according to a source.

I guess we can't afford anyone.:dunno:

[Spitball]

The Sox are apparently talking to the Rockies about Scutaro. If the Sox don't have a better alternative than Punto, I will be very unhappy.

[seabeachfred]

The Sox are apparently talking to the Rockies about Scutaro. If the Sox don't have a better alternative than Punto' date=' I will be very unhappy.[/quote']

 

Hold on Spitball. Aviles would be the shortstop if Scutaro is traded and that would free up money to go after someone like Cody Ross or maybe a pitcher like you know who.

[SoxSport]

Exactly' date=' Vegas odds at the beginning of the season will be the truest most objective evaluation of the strength of the Red Sox. The odds makers are unbiased, and they do make their living being right.[/quote']

 

 

 

The way the playoffs are set up, about the only thing you can do is predict who will make the playoffs. The rest of it is a throw of dice.

[iortiz]

Odds to win the 2012 World Series

Friday, January 20, 2012

 

Philadelphia Phillies

11/2

Los Angeles Angels

13/2

New York Yankees

13/2

Texas Rangers

9/1

Boston Red Sox

10/1

Detroit Tigers

14/1

Florida Marlins

15/1

San Francisco Giants

16/1

Arizona Diamondbacks

20/1

Atlanta Braves

20/1

St. Louis Cardinals

20/1

Tampa Bay Rays

20/1

Washington Nationals

22/1

Cincinnati Reds

25/1

Milwaukee Brewers

25/1

Chicago Cubs

30/1

Colorado Rockies

30/1

Los Angeles Dodgers

30/1

Toronto Blue Jays

30/1

Chicago White Sox

35/1

Cleveland Guardians

50/1

Minnesota Twins

50/1

Kansas City Royals

60/1

New York Mets

60/1

Oakland Athletics

65/1

Pittsburgh Pirates

65/1

Seattle Mariners

65/1

San Diego Padres

90/1

Baltimore Orioles

100/1

Houston Astros

100/1

 

http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/baseball-futures.jsp

 

[ORS]

Exactly' date=' Vegas odds at the beginning of the season will be the truest most objective evaluation of the strength of the Red Sox. The odds makers are unbiased, and they do make their living being right.[/quote']

Not necessarily. They make their money by having an equal balance sheet. The odds adjust based on the action. The goal of the oddsmaker is to not accurately predict the actual outcome, but to accurately predict bettor's choices. The money for them is cooked into the odds (or service fee) if they have a balanced sheet.

[a700hitter]

Not necessarily. They make their money by having an equal balance sheet. The odds adjust based on the action. The goal of the oddsmaker is to not accurately predict the actual outcome' date=' but to accurately predict bettor's choices. The money for them is cooked into the odds (or service fee) if they have a balanced sheet.[/quote']When the betting opens, there has been no betting play (action) to affect the odds.

[RedSoxNC84]

Ahhhh the Scutaro trade rumor was such a tease.

[Bellhorn04]

When the betting opens' date=' there has been no betting play (action) to affect the odds.[/quote']

 

What ORS said is basically the same thing I was trying to say.

 

As you say, the oddsmakers do have to crunch numbers and do evaluations to come up with their opening lines, and the opening lines do reflect an educated guess of the relative strength of teams and players.

[Bellhorn04]

Ahhhh the Scutaro trade rumor was such a tease.

 

Yeah, it was. To me it does show that Benny Boy is out there working on the goal of getting us another starter.