tue
LA Dodgers -174
Kansas City +117
NY Mets +102
Chi. Cubs -123
St. Louis -200
San Diego -141
Kansas City +117
NY Mets +102
Chi. Cubs -123
St. Louis -200
San Diego -141
-
-
Don't wanna rage or start an argument, but please could you tell me why you pick lines of -174 and -200 in single plays?Comment -
-174 against mad bum.. WowComment -
only thing i can figure is Kershaw is a beast at home especially coming off a loss and the Giants are the worst teams in MLB when it comes to team batting average, on base percentage and runs scored.
Still runs should be hard to come by for the Dodgers without Puig.
Giants could very well eek out a 1-0 win or 2-1 something like that especially if Kershaw can't go the distance.Comment -
I think he will be again, but it remains to be seen if Kershaw really can be the beast at home he was last season.
I also don't know where it comes from (I have read it often) that Kershaw is so good coming off a loss in his previous start. Dodgers are 48-33 overall and 26-18 at home in a Kershaw start when they lost his previous start. Because he is nearly always a heavy favorite in those situations you hadn't made money backing him in those situations.
Additionally, the Giants have been only 10th in AVG, 18th in OBP and 12th in runs scored last season and they won the WS nonetheless.Comment -
editingComment -
1 Toronto 20 665 105 163 39 1 26 282 101 .245 .316 .424 .740 2 Baltimore 19 644 104 183 32 5 27 306 98 .284 .345 .475 .821 3 NY Yankees 20 682 103 166 39 4 27 294 95 .243 .326 .431 .757 4 Boston 20 707 101 168 18 2 24 262 94 .238 .326 .371 .697 5 San Diego 21 734 100 197 42 6 21 314 97 .268 .316 .428 .744 6 Oakland 20 704 96 189 37 7 15 285 91 .268 .327 .405 .732 7 Detroit 20 670 95 194 33 7 18 295 87 .290 .361 .440 .801 8 Kansas City 19 667 95 198 39 6 14 291 88 .297 .357 .436 .793 9 LA Dodgers 19 637 92 174 44 4 28 310 89 .273 .353 .487 .840 10 NY Mets 20 646 89 156 28 4 15 237 86 .241 .316 .367 .683 11 Miami 20 674 86 176 27 6 11 248 76 .261 .316 .368 .684 12 Chicago Cubs 18 619 82 153 30 4 16 239 77 .247 .324 .386 .710 13 Colorado 19 662 82 187 47 5 19 301 80 .282 .326 .455 .781 14 Tampa Bay 20 657 82 160 34 4 19 259 79 .244 .324 .394 .718 15 Houston 19 651 79 149 27 2 25 255 75 .229 .310 .392 .701 16 Pittsburgh 20 653 79 148 34 0 17 233 78 .227 .275 .357 .632 17 Atlanta 19 622 77 153 29 4 17 241 74 .246 .313 .387 .701 18 Cincinnati 19 643 77 143 19 4 21 233 71 .222 .296 .362 .658 19 LA Angels 19 626 75 142 27 1 17 222 70 .227 .294 .355 .649 20 Arizona 19 656 75 158 24 5 11 225 70 .241 .308 .343 .651 21 Texas 19 649 72 138 32 1 13 211 64 .213 .300 .325 .625 22 Seattle 19 642 70 151 27 2 23 251 67 .235 .288 .391 .679 23 Washington 20 664 69 143 31 4 16 230 66 .215 .289 .346 .635 24 St. Louis 18 620 67 161 40 1 13 242 62 .260 .322 .390 .712 25 Cleveland 18 604 66 140 29 1 16 219 64 .232 .294 .363 .656 26 Minnesota 19 641 64 146 29 2 9 206 59 .228 .291 .321 .612 27 Milwaukee 20 658 61 150 39 2 9 220 57 .228 .278 .334 .612 28 San Francisco 20 694 61 172 28 7 12 250 59 .248 .316 .360 .677 29 Chicago Sox 17 572 60 138 29 2 12 207 58 .241 .295 .362 .657 30 Philadelphia 20 651 53 143 24 6 11 212 51 .220 .275 .326 .601 Comment -
28th in runs scored.
so that doesn't bode well when you are getting ready to face a pissed off Kershaw.
but hey i am actually thinking of betting Giants too
I love some + money i am just scared to bet against kershaw ( i still might though)Comment -
I really don't know what's so important about runs scored. That's something which fluctuates a lot over weeks. And since most teams don't have even 20 games on their back this doesn't mean a lot.
Besides that, 1, 2 and 6 in the table above have losing records. St. Louis at 24 has the 3rd best record in the MLB. So which conclusion do you wanna draw?
The Giants lost 8 in a row (outscored 15-43) of their first 20 games. Of course you won't have many runs scored when 40% of your current games saw you averaging 1.8 runs per game. They were slumping like the slumping slumpsters from slumperville. In the other 12 they didn't score this many runs, too, but they averaged 3.8 runs per game in those. That's a little bit worse than 2014 (overall 4.1) and nearly as much as 2013 (3.9).
The Orioles have scored 5.5 runs per game thusfar but what did this help since they allowed 5.4 per game, too? Nothing. 13 of their 19 games saw them scoring at least 5 runs or more. They are only 7-6 in those. Right now they stand below .500 with 9-10. And there was this rampage against the Red Sox when they scored 18 in 1 game. This game alone makes nearly up for 1 run per game.
The Athletics have scored 4.8 runs per game thusfar and it didn't help them either. They allow 4.3 per game and have a record of 8-12.
The Phillies average 2.6 runs per game but have also a 8-12 record.
Runs scored shouldn't be a go-to-stat when looking at matchups (of course don't ignore it, but don't put too much stock into it). It fluctuates way too much and since we are only around the 20 game mark - a few rough games in a row or a few very good games in a row aren't enough to draw final conclusions.
The Giants are batting .248 overall (despite those 8 lousy games), that's better than the Blue Jays, Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, Pirates or Reds (along many others). Their problem has been batting with men on base (25th with .225) and men in scoring position (24th, .218). Two situations in which the Giants were significantly better last season and you can expect that to get better. The BABIP has been quite low in those situations and this will come up.Comment -
Clayton Kershaw is a fantastic pitcher, but he hasn't been his dominant self. When you add up the fact that Kershaw has not been a dominating force and that he is playing a divisional rival, I don't see any value in drinking that much juice.Comment -
Thanks for the kind words, but guys (teams) like Mitch, 2dabank and several others are btter than me.
Comment
