Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

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

  1. #1
    Member Eric_Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    5,041

    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.
    Rob Neyer: "Any writer who says he'd be a better manager than the worst manager is either 1) lying (i.e. 'using poetic license') or 2) patently delusional. Which isn't to say managers don't do stupid things that you or I wouldn't."

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    You know his story Redsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    7,714

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric_Davis View Post
    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.

    Makes all the routine posts.

  4. #3
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,674

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redsland View Post
    Or 5 games under, according to some formulas.

    Funky math
    Go Gators!

  5. #4
    Member DannyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale
    Posts
    803

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

    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.

  6. #5
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    6,453

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

    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
    Last edited by klw; 03-07-2007 at 05:19 PM.

  7. #6
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,989

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric_Davis View Post
    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.

  8. #7
    Be the ball Roy Tucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mason, OH
    Posts
    12,174

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redsland View Post
    Or 5 games under, according to some formulas.


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

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

    Pay attention to the open sky

  9. #8
    Tired of talk. Win! Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Commonwealth
    Posts
    8,370

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

    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.

    Championships for MY teams in my lifetime:
    Cincinnati Reds - 75, 76, 90
    Chicago Blackhawks - 10, 13
    University of Kentucky - 78, 96, 98, 12
    Cincinnati Bengals - None
    Chicago Bulls - 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98

  10. #9
    Member Eric_Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    5,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by klw View Post
    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.
    Rob Neyer: "Any writer who says he'd be a better manager than the worst manager is either 1) lying (i.e. 'using poetic license') or 2) patently delusional. Which isn't to say managers don't do stupid things that you or I wouldn't."

  11. #10
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,952

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

    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....
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  12. #11
    Senor Votto Degenerate39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,917

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

    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.
    Most Vottomatic Player

  13. #12
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,745

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric_Davis View Post
    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.
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  14. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    4,082

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

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

  15. #14
    Member harangatang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,550

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric_Davis View Post
    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.

  16. #15
    Smells Like Teen Spirit jmcclain19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    6,490

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

    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.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25