OT: Red Sox

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
Of course. You brought up odds and odds are fickle and based on who's betting on whom. If you're looking at reading tea leaves and who has brightest futures in baseball I say almost without question those teams are Houston and Chicago and I stand by that.

And you can...

...but odds say they won't. And that's my point.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,851
Liked Posts:
9,047
And you can...

...but odds say they won't. And that's my point.

What odds? Show the odds just dont throw out a baseless statement. Are you saying the odds are against them because there are 30 teams in MLB? Are you saying the odds are against them because of prospects? The odds arent against them anymore. They have to many certain type of prospects that the odds favor them. To say the odds are against them in the future is just a random statement that you can make for any team in the league.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
What odds? Show the odds just dont throw out a baseless statement. Are you saying the odds are against them because there are 30 teams in MLB? Are you saying the odds are against them because of prospects? The odds arent against them anymore. They have to many certain type of prospects that the odds favor them. To say the odds are against them in the future is just a random statement that you can make for any team in the league.

The odds are against them because there are a lot of teams better than them.

As to Vegas, traditionally the Cubs get 6x+ better odds than they should because everyone wants to say they bet on them if they win.

But hey, rage on....
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,851
Liked Posts:
9,047
The odds are against them because there are a lot of teams better than them.

As to Vegas, traditionally the Cubs get 6x+ better odds than they should because everyone wants to say they bet on them if they win.

But hey, rage on....

You also have no idea whose team will be better then the other 2 years from now. His point was the Cubs going forward have a bright future. Also, 6x the odds because their the Cubs? Lol show me that proof. Vegas makes odds based on calculations not just random numbers because of a team name.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
You also have no idea whose team will be better then the other 2 years from now. His point was the Cubs going forward have a bright future. Also, 6x the odds because their the Cubs? Lol show me that proof. Vegas makes odds based on calculations not just random numbers because of a team name.

Uhm, it's talked about all the time. Sorry, I don;t have "proof" for ya. But in Chicago it's talked about all the time in the media.

The odds drop for the reason I gave.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,851
Liked Posts:
9,047
Uhm, it's talked about all the time. Sorry, I don;t have "proof" for ya. But in Chicago it's talked about all the time in the media.

The odds drop for the reason I gave.

The media in Chicago is pretty dumb then.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
35,136
Liked Posts:
19,211

I agree with the point you are making. The exact same players with the same manager, in the uniforms of, say, the Phillies, would have longer odds because people are betting on the Cubs specifically, largely due to the fact they haven't won a WS in over, what is it cough, cough twenty years?

However 6 times the odds is a ridiculous number and I believe pulled out of thin air. But the idea that there would be more bets on the Cubs than similar longshot teams? Yeah, I can see that.

But the fact the odds dropped when they hired Maddon is not at all along the same lines. In that specific case, the oddsmakers believe a) they have a better chance with Maddon than with Renteria, and b) hiring Maddon signaled the Cubs were more likely to make moves for 2015 vs. waiting for 2016.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
I agree with the point you are making. The exact same players with the same manager, in the uniforms of, say, the Phillies, would have longer odds because people are betting on the Cubs specifically, largely due to the fact they haven't won a WS in over, what is it cough, cough twenty years?

However 6 times the odds is a ridiculous number and I believe pulled out of thin air. But the idea that there would be more bets on the Cubs than similar longshot teams? Yeah, I can see that.

But the fact the odds dropped when they hired Maddon is not at all along the same lines. In that specific case, the oddsmakers believe a) they have a better chance with Maddon than with Renteria, and b) hiring Maddon signaled the Cubs were more likely to make moves for 2015 vs. waiting for 2016.

Cubs should be 60-100:1 most years. Don't know what to tell you there.

The article said the action dropped the odds not their chances of winning. The industry can't care less who wins or who even has the better chance of winning
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
Btw...rumor is Lester is signing with Red Sox for 6/110-120.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,915
@bradfo: Lester's agent Seth Levinson on report that pitcher is close to deal with Red Sox, and that team has set a Wed. deadline is "inaccurate."
 

hyatt151

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
12,685
Liked Posts:
3,926
I agree with the point you are making. The exact same players with the same manager, in the uniforms of, say, the Phillies, would have longer odds because people are betting on the Cubs specifically, largely due to the fact they haven't won a WS in over, what is it cough, cough twenty years?

However 6 times the odds is a ridiculous number and I believe pulled out of thin air. But the idea that there would be more bets on the Cubs than similar longshot teams? Yeah, I can see that.

But the fact the odds dropped when they hired Maddon is not at all along the same lines. In that specific case, the oddsmakers believe a) they have a better chance with Maddon than with Renteria, and b) hiring Maddon signaled the Cubs were more likely to make moves for 2015 vs. waiting for 2016.



If you blew a kiss in Brett05's right ear, bisquick would spew out the left.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
35,136
Liked Posts:
19,211
Mentioned on Twitter...I know poor source

Twitter is not a source. Twitter is the method a source uses to send his message. There's all kinds of good, reliable stuff and all kinds of garbage on Twitter. What matters is who the source is.

(And even then, even the professionals are speculating most of the time.)
 

Top