Is There a Logical Reason for this Amazing Trend?

[LT Profits]

The OVER is 34-9, 79.1% this season when Tampa Bay plays on grass!

Should this be lumped in with anamelies such as a team is 56-2 in Tuesday night games, or is this a valid pattern with some sound logic? I honestly can't think of a reason why this should continue, but maybe someone else can.

[Doc JS]

LT,

Here's my take, FWIW.

Tampa is a bad team with a terrible bullpen. When they play on grass they're playing on the road. Bad teams are worse on the road.

They play in the AL East. So, they're playing against some real strong offensive teams - Boston and New York and to a lesser extent Baltimore. Those teams are better at home. They knock out the Rays starter and feast on the soft underbelly of their bullpen (much like the Yankees did against the Royals this weekend). Hence, the overs!

What ya' think?

[LT Profits]

That makes perfect sense, but why would there be a higher percentage of Overs on grass than in artificial turf road games?

[LT Profits]

Scratch that Doc, I now see that the Rays have only played six road games on turf all year. Hey guess what - the Under is 6-0 in those games! LOL

Regardless, with just six turf games out of 49 roadies, I guess you can chalk it up simply to the "bad team on the road" factor. That being the case, maybe this DOES bear following, and the total is below 10 at Detroit tonight.

[RickySteve]

.

[EaglesPhan36]

Two words: Edwin Jackson

[bigboydan]

There bullpen just sucks that bad.

[The HG]

Scratch that Doc, I now see that the Rays have only played six road games on turf all year. Hey guess what - the Under is 6-0 in those games! LOL

Regardless, with just six turf games out of 49 roadies, I guess you can chalk it up simply to the "bad team on the road" factor. That being the case, maybe this DOES bear following, and the total is below 10 at Detroit tonight.

I'm not sure your info is right. Was their April 14th 12-5 loss at Minnesota not played on turf? If it was, that's pretty misleading to say the total for the game was 17.5,-100000000 to the under, and count the game as an under.

[LT Profits]

Ganch.

The statfox matchup page is wrong then. They show the Tampa Over 34-15 on road and 34-9 on grass.

http://www.sbrforum.com/statfeed/statfeed.aspx?page=mlb/expanded&date=08/06/2007&rotnum=962

[isetcap]

I'm not sure your info is right. Was their April 14th 12-5 loss at Minnesota not played on turf? If it was, that's pretty misleading to say the total for the game was 17.5,-100000000 to the under, and count the game as an under.

They grew some real grass for that specific game.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I'm not sure your info is right. Was their April 14th 12-5 loss at Minnesota not played on turf? If it was, that's pretty misleading to say the total for the game was 17.5,-100000000 to the under, and count the game as an under.

Unfortunately, I had the over in that one...

[LT Profits]

F0cker,

Over was worth a shot at +80,000,000

[LT Profits]

Actually statfox may be right after all. Didn't Tampa Bay play a 4-game HOME series on grass vs. Texas in Orlando?

[curious]

Tampa has a lot of high average hitters who have speed but they don't hit for power. Grass favors hitters like this because what would have been a one hopper to short stop on turf is a three-four hopper on grass. Fast runner beats out the throw for an infield single.

same with balls hit to the outfield, on turf they get to the outfielder in a hurry, on grass the outfielder has to charge the ball. What was a single on turf is a double on grass.

Don't know if this actually means anything, but I do know that an offense with lots of speed does better on grass.

Other explanation could just be who these teams are that play on grass. I haven't checked, but if all the teams with great pitching play on turf and all the teams with terrible pitching play on grass, would make sense.

Maybe someone can give us a rundown of Tampa opponents grass vs turf.