PDA

View Full Version : I can't believe we're considered to be this bad....



Eric_Davis
03-07-2007, 05:58 PM
Looking at an online Sports Book today, I see the REDS Over/Under is 76 wins.

10 games under .500!

But then the same Sports Books had the TrailBlazers' Over/Under at 24.5. They've already passed that with a month to go.

I think teams that are under the radar just don't get watched or inspected as much and that they have a lot more room for improvement. Why else would you explain Aaron Harang getting ZERO votes for the Cy Young when every other NL pitcher that's accomplished what he did actually won the award?


Not only are the REDS seen as a 76 win team, but they're also projected to finish a distant Fifth for their chances to win the Division.

The odds for the Central Division are:

CUBS 3-2
CARDS 3-2
BREWERS 5-1
ASTROS 7-1
REDS 15-1
PIRATES 40-1


77 WINS? Seems like easy money.

Redsland
03-07-2007, 06:02 PM
Looking at an online Sports Book today, I see the REDS Over/Under is 76 wins.

10 games under .500!
Or 5 games under, according to some formulas.

;)

KronoRed
03-07-2007, 06:07 PM
Or 5 games under, according to some formulas.

;)

Funky math

DannyB
03-07-2007, 06:11 PM
My experience with bookies is they usually have a pretty good idea when they post those lines.You know if they hit it on the money at 76 wins all the bettors lose.They realize thats probably not going to happen so they are looking for even amounts wagered on both sides of the line.

klw
03-07-2007, 06:12 PM
Well the average over/under on a thread a couple of weeks ago here was 79.14. Is the 3.14 (besides being Pie) the homer adjustment?

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54540&page=2&highlight=over+under+wins

Falls City Beer
03-07-2007, 06:13 PM
Looking at an online Sports Book today, I see the REDS Over/Under is 76 wins.

10 games under .500!

But then the same Sports Books had the TrailBlazers' Over/Under at 24.5. They've already passed that with a month to go.

I think teams that are under the radar just don't get watched or inspected as much and that they have a lot more room for improvement. Why else would you explain Aaron Harang getting ZERO votes for the Cy Young when every other NL pitcher that's accomplished what he did actually won the award?


Not only are the REDS seen as a 76 win team, but they're also projected to finish a distant Fifth for their chances to win the Division.

The odds for the Central Division are:

CUBS 3-2
CARDS 3-2
BREWERS 5-1
ASTROS 7-1
REDS 15-1
PIRATES 40-1


77 WINS? Seems like easy money.

I'm going with 75 wins myself. Two starters, a baleful offense, and a pathetic bullpen doesn't point me towards anything but a sub-.500 season.

Roy Tucker
03-07-2007, 06:15 PM
Or 5 games under, according to some formulas.

;)


Unless the 76 is a hexadecimal number which is a 118 decimal. :thumbup:

Unless the 76 is an octal number which a 62 decimal. :thumbdown

Joseph
03-07-2007, 06:36 PM
I subscribe to both theories depending on mood. During the season if you are 5 games under it would take 5 games to get you back to 500 obviously, I can go with that. But when talking about the total 'pie' of season games played, I revert to the other formula that claims in which for every game you take from one column, you add it to the other, ie 80-82 is only 1 game under 500 because if you win one of those two games in difference, then you subtract one from the loss and add one to the win making you 500.

Or something.

Eric_Davis
03-07-2007, 06:38 PM
Well the average over/under on a thread a couple of weeks ago here was 79.14. Is the 3.14 (besides being Pie) the homer adjustment?

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54540&page=2&highlight=over+under+wins

That's not bad, then. Maybe 76 is realistic. Guess I'll just enjoy the season that much more if they do better.

jojo
03-07-2007, 08:18 PM
I'm waiting till the roster is set and there is a better idea of how Narrom might use guys..... I can see where the Reds could win 83 games, and I can see ways they could be lucky to win 75....

Degenerate39
03-07-2007, 10:58 PM
I don't believe in predicting wins and loses before opening day. You can't predict injuries (unless it's Griffey) and off games. Hell maybe Griff will stay healthy all year and hit 30 some homers. Maybe some of those will be walk off home runs. You never know. So those predictions might as well be a grain of salt.

RedFanAlways1966
03-07-2007, 11:02 PM
Looking at an online Sports Book today, I see the REDS Over/Under is 76 wins.

Wonder what it was last year? I can 'bet" that it was below 80 games. :)

TOBTTReds
03-07-2007, 11:13 PM
If Hamilton bats .563 with 78 HR's, I think we win 98 games. If he doesn't, I'd say 80 wins again.

harangatang
03-07-2007, 11:20 PM
Looking at an online Sports Book today, I see the REDS Over/Under is 76 wins.

10 games under .500!



Not only are the REDS seen as a 76 win team, but they're also projected to finish a distant Fifth for their chances to win the Division.


Considering the Reds did very little to improve themselves I don't think that projecton is too far off. The Reds pretty much kept what they had and that's it other than adding a slick-fielding shortstop and some pitching projects. I may sound like a broken record but with the Reds finishing with a -50 run differential they should've been, ironically 76-86 last year. For a team that added no big chips I don't see how this team can make up 50 runs to put them at .500. I'm sure it hurts some fans, but I think this booking agency is right on.

jmcclain19
03-07-2007, 11:45 PM
It's spring and everyone is optimistic. Of course it's understandable to drink some of the koolaid and feel good about the Reds. I do it every year as well - I'm excited about the growth of EdE & Josh Hamilton and whether or not Homer makes the team. That's why we love spring and we love baseball - every year is a rebirth and a chance to be new.

Unfortunately, spring always turns to summer and the flowers tend to wilt in the heat. Much like the optimism about how well the Reds will do this year. I think it's forgotten that the Reds "pennant" race last year was nothing more than a circumstance of the NL environment rather than the Reds being a good team.

Sub out Rich Aurilia for Jeff Conine & you pretty much have the 2006 Reds on repeat. Which was not a good production the first time we saw it. Certainly doesn't get any better in syndication.

jmac
03-07-2007, 11:58 PM
I think it's forgotten that the Reds "pennant" race last year was nothing more than a circumstance of the NL environment rather than the Reds being a good team.

Yes but has the addition of guys like Marquis, Lilly, Kip Wells and Williams to rotations and the minus of guys like Clemens and Pettite ,and Suppan(stl)
mean that the environment has improved that much this year ?

jmcclain19
03-08-2007, 12:10 AM
Yes but has the addition of guys like Marquis, Lilly, Kip Wells and Williams to rotations and the minus of guys like Clemens and Pettite ,and Suppan(stl)
mean that the environment has improved that much this year ?

So is that the Reds plan? Hope everyone else sucks?

jmac
03-08-2007, 12:19 AM
So is that the Reds plan? Hope everyone else sucks?

I didnt say it was a "plan"....only asked if division was that much improved over last year ?

harangatang
03-08-2007, 12:57 AM
I didnt say it was a "plan"....only asked if division was that much improved over last year ?Your question should be, have the Reds improved since last year? The answer is no.

Highlifeman21
03-08-2007, 01:01 AM
Your question should be, have the Reds improved since last year? The answer is no.


If anything, they've regressed.

Ltlabner
03-08-2007, 08:18 AM
Wonder what it was last year? I can 'bet" that it was below 80 games. :)

Seems to me we were going to be in last place, lucky to avoid losing 100 games, and generally the scurge of the baseball world.

Seems to be a theme this time of year.

minus5
03-08-2007, 10:24 AM
Seems to be a theme this time of year.

Yeah, I know that song...These guys used to sing it:

http://www.timvp.com/heehaw2.jpg

gonelong
03-08-2007, 02:27 PM
Seems to me we were going to be in last place, lucky to avoid losing 100 games, and generally the scurge of the baseball world.

Seems to be a theme this time of year.

Perception is a funny thing.

Last year 132 predictions were given before opening day. By my calculations the Redszoners xpected 76.66 Ws on average.

The Reds finished with 80 actual Ws and a 76-86 Pythagorean (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/faq.shtml#pyth) record.

This was before the emergence of Arroyo, Ross, or Phillips. If anything, the site was relatively optimistic, as always.

2006 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44503) - RZ Avg Ws: 76.66 Actual: 80 PTHG: 76
2005 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33108) - RZ Avg Ws: 84.67 Actual: 73 PTHG: 75
2004 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21619) - RZ Avg Ws 76.82 Actual: 76 PTHG: 67
2003 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9414) - RZ Avg Ws 87.88 Actual: 69 PTHG: 63
2002 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4202) - RZ Avg Ws 79.71 Actual: 75 PTHG: 63

This site has always been a tad optimistic and likely always will. After all, its made up of Reds fans.

GL

MartyFan
03-08-2007, 03:13 PM
If anything, they've regressed.

My answer to this is...ST isn't over yet and I think we are going to see Special K Shine once again.

Highlifeman21
03-08-2007, 03:51 PM
My answer to this is...ST isn't over yet and I think we are going to see Special K Shine once again.

Define "shine"

I have a feeling we're gonna see a transaction that will have significant impact on the Opening Day 25 man roster.

Ltlabner
03-08-2007, 06:23 PM
Perception is a funny thing.

This site has always been a tad optimistic and likely always will. After all, its made up of Reds fans.

GL

Actually, I wasn't even considering the RZ predictions. Only thinking about the national media. That's what the original post was about, our rankings in the national sports media.

Strikes Out Looking
03-08-2007, 06:30 PM
I'm in the minority in this thread (I'm in the minority in many threads outside of RZ as well, but that's another story;). I think the Reds improved from last year--their defense is better and their bullpen is better. The other teams in the division either did not improve at all (Houston, ST. Louis) or have a lot of ground to make up from last season (Cubs)--so they have a shot at winning 85 games -- it all depends how they do against the NL Central.

And another thing, the Cubs odds are 3-2. For them to win 81 games, many things have to break right--maybe even more than the Reds need to win that many games.

CINCYREDS#1
03-08-2007, 07:06 PM
sportsbooks dont know any more than the TV sports analysists or weathermen

fargo55
03-08-2007, 07:56 PM
This projection seems a little pessimistic. I say let's go ahead and play the games anyway. We could be a surprise.

gonelong
03-09-2007, 12:34 AM
Actually, I wasn't even considering the RZ predictions. Only thinking about the national media. That's what the original post was about, our rankings in the national sports media.

Gotcha, though I don't recall the media being quite that down on the Reds last year either.

GL

DoogMinAmo
03-09-2007, 12:50 AM
Perception is a funny thing.

Last year 132 predictions were given before opening day. By my calculations the Redszoners xpected 76.66 Ws on average.

The Reds finished with 80 actual Ws and a 76-86 Pythagorean (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/faq.shtml#pyth) record.

This was before the emergence of Arroyo, Ross, or Phillips. If anything, the site was relatively optimistic, as always.

2006 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44503) - RZ Avg Ws: 76.66 Actual: 80 PTHG: 76
2005 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33108) - RZ Avg Ws: 84.67 Actual: 73 PTHG: 75
2004 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21619) - RZ Avg Ws 76.82 Actual: 76 PTHG: 67
2003 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9414) - RZ Avg Ws 87.88 Actual: 69 PTHG: 63
2002 Predictions (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4202) - RZ Avg Ws 79.71 Actual: 75 PTHG: 63

This site has always been a tad optimistic and likely always will. After all, its made up of Reds fans.

GL

Seems like Redszone is a closer predictor of wins than Pythag in even years only. :confused:

George Anderson
03-09-2007, 12:53 AM
sportsbooks dont know any more than the TV sports analysists or weathermen

Next time I will tell my accountant that.:rolleyes:

dsmith421
03-09-2007, 01:22 AM
sportsbooks dont know any more than the TV sports analysists or weathermen

Fascinating analysis. How do you suppose that all the books in Vegas and Reno stay open, seeing as how they're throwing darts at a wall?