[Rookie-Capper]

LA Dodgers -174
Kansas City +117
NY Mets +102
Chi. Cubs -123
St. Louis -200
San Diego -141

[posey]

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?

[sbfk]

-174 against mad bum.. Wow

[Big Bear]

-174 against mad bum.. Wow

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.

[posey]

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.

[Big Bear]

editing

[Big Bear]

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

[Big Bear]

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)

[A4K]

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.

[posey]

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.

[A4K]

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.

[mnka]

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.

im gonna go ahead and say you are the best baseball capper on this forum

[posey]

Thanks for the kind words, but guys (teams) like Mitch, 2dabank and several others are btter than me.