Atlantis Sports Book

[JP Hochbaum]

Based on our run differential last year we should have been between 88-90 wins. So I am guessing these numbers just reflect what expected run differential will be. Plus we are still relying on a lot of guys who are young to have repeat success.

 

[brett05]

Based on our run differential last year we should have been between 88-90 wins. So I am guessing these numbers just reflect what expected run differential will be. Plus we are still relying on a lot of guys who are young to have repeat success.

That's not why the Cubs are listed at 89.5

 

[DanTown]

Having guys that can play a position when injury happens is not necessarily depth. You replace Lester with Wood and that's a ten game swing. Braynt goes down and Baez comes in (assuming he's not turned the corner) and the Cubs miss the playoffs.

You overrate names and their ability on a teams W/L record. There's no way the difference between Jon Lester and Travis Wood is 10 wins. There's no way the difference between Bryant and Baez is "playoffs" (how many wins is that exactly)?

You make ludicrous arguments without using facts. I don't get how moderators allow it tbh.

 

[Parade_Rain]

These over/under betting places don't usually miss by much. That's an interesting comment about the run differential. If that's how they reason the 89.5 wins, I can understand it.

 

[brett05]

You overrate names and their ability on a teams W/L record. There's no way the difference between Jon Lester and Travis Wood is 10 wins. There's no way the difference between Bryant and Baez is "playoffs" (how many wins is that exactly)?

You make ludicrous arguments without using facts. I don't get how moderators allow it tbh.

You are the one kidding yourself. If you think Wood and Lester or Jake is less than 10 games difference, I'd love to see that. This would be an instance where WAR fails IMO.

Feel what you will, but I'll let the career performances speak

 

[brett05]

These over/under betting places don't usually miss by much. That's an interesting comment about the run differential. If that's how they reason the 89.5 wins, I can understand it.

They over/under wager couldn't care less about how accurate they are. Zilch, Zero, Nada. They only want one thing. 50/50 action.

 

[Parade_Rain]

They over/under wager couldn't care less about how accurate they are. Zilch, Zero, Nada. They only want one thing. 50/50 action.

No kidding, Sherlock. They aren't going to set it where they think they are going to lose more than they win.

 

[DanTown]

You are the one kidding yourself. If you think Wood and Lester or Jake is less than 10 games difference, I'd love to see that. This would be an instance where WAR fails IMO.

Feel what you will, but I'll let the career performances speak

How many wins do you think the Cubs will get in games started by Lester? How many by Wood? If the difference in their ERA is 2 runs, that's 45 more ER by Wood than Lester. If you say nine runs in +/- equal a win, that's about five wins.

 

[85Bears]

They over/under wager couldn't care less about how accurate they are. Zilch, Zero, Nada. They only want one thing. 50/50 action.

Think I understand what you're getting at. Who's going to bet that the Cubs get more than 89.50 wins? Cubs fans. Who's going to bet that they get less than that? Oh, say, Cards fans. And Pirates fans. And Brewers fans. And anyone else who likes another team better. So if by putting the over/under at 89.5 they get the same number of people who bet in favor of the Cubs as who bet against they Cubs I'm guessing they achieve their mark. If that logic holds, that explains why nobody is above 90 wins even though most predict the Cubs and others will be considerably higher than that.

I don't really know much (hardly anything) about Vegas odds-making, but if that's your point, I get it. Then again, I'm about half drunk right now, so the logic portion of my brain probably checked out a while ago...

 

[brett05]

No kidding, Sherlock. They aren't going to set it where they think they are going to lose more than they win.

That's not what you said though. YOu implied that the win totals are reasonably accurate and that's not what they are there for.

 

[brett05]

How many wins do you think the Cubs will get in games started by Lester? How many by Wood? If the difference in their ERA is 2 runs, that's 45 more ER by Wood than Lester. If you say nine runs in +/- equal a win, that's about five wins.

Not only is Lester the SUPERIOR pitcher, he does more than just that. He inspires the team as well. His great play is food for others to feed off of. It's ten games easy. And that's even assuming Wood can throw 200 innings. When he doesn't you get a replacement guy in to replace the replacement.

 

[brett05]

Think I understand what you're getting at. Who's going to bet that the Cubs get more than 89.50 wins? Cubs fans. Who's going to bet that they get less than that? Oh, say, Cards fans. And Pirates fans. And Brewers fans. And anyone else who likes another team better. So if by putting the over/under at 89.5 they get the same number of people who bet in favor of the Cubs as who bet against they Cubs I'm guessing they achieve their mark. If that logic holds, that explains why nobody is above 90 wins even though most predict the Cubs and others will be considerably higher than that.

I don't really know much (hardly anything) about Vegas odds-making, but if that's your point, I get it. Then again, I'm about half drunk right now, so the logic portion of my brain probably checked out a while ago...

You nailed it.

Many people including just about everyone on this board thinks that the line means Vegas likes this team better or thinks this team will do such and such. Complete drivel. The lines get set to encourage equal action on both sides. When that happens the sports book wins as they make the vig, juice, 5% off of all total wagers (Pay the winner and collect 10% from the loser.) It's a great deal for the book.

 

[Parade_Rain]

That's not what you said though. YOu implied that the win totals are reasonably accurate and that's not what they are there for.

LOL. #fullbrett05

 

[brett05]

LOL. #fullbrett05

#irony

 

[Parade_Rain]

#irony

#bretttrollsohard

 

[brett05]

:smh: oh well.

 

[Boobaby1]

The Cubs had a lot of sweep series last year, like taking all seven from the Mets. That doesn't figure to happen again.

That said, I think that with the Wainright's of the world coming back, coupled with the improvements to Arizona's staff, and the Dodgers with Ryu and Kazmir taking Greinke's place, I think that both divisions could beat up on each other.

Generally, the teams that have the biggest stars not making frequent trips to the DL, often will fare pretty well.

 

[DanTown]

The Cubs had a lot of sweep series last year, like taking all seven from the Mets. That doesn't figure to happen again.

That said, I think that with the Wainright's of the world coming back, coupled with the improvements to Arizona's staff, and the Dodgers with Ryu and Kazmir taking Greinke's place, I think that both divisions could beat up on each other.

Generally, the teams that have the biggest stars not making frequent trips to the DL, often will fare pretty well.

If the Cardinals get Wainwright and he's as good as Lackey was for them, that's a lateral move. They'll still have to replace Lynn (and while Leake may be that guy, he's never been THAT good) and they obviously will have to replace Heyward's production both offensively and defensively.

Also, their hitters are due some massive regression. Grichuk hit .276 with a 31.4% K rate and a .365 BABIP that is likely to regress. They simply don't have the roster or feel of a 90+ win ball club to me. If Grichuk regresses and Holliday is aged out of being a power hitter, I simply don't see their team hitting enough to cover what I think will be an average offense.

Also, important to remember, their FIP was .56 higher than their ERA. To compare, the Cubs had a lower FIP (3.30 to 3.48) but the Cubs gave up 83 more runs than the Cardinals.

 

[brett05]

DT - but what if Adam is better than Lackey as he has been historically?

 

[Parade_Rain]

DT - but what if Adam is better than Lackey as he has been historically?

What if Lackey is better than the Cubs #3 pitcher historically?