I can't believe we're considered to be this bad....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric_Davis

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.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redsland

Or 5 games under, according to some formulas.

;)

---

Funky math

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.

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/showt...ver+under+wins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric_Davis

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redsland

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klw

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/showt...ver+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.

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....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric_Davis

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. :)

If Hamilton bats .563 with 78 HR's, I think we win 98 games. If he doesn't, I'd say 80 wins again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric_Davis

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.

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.