Lincecum/Westbrook a pick'em?

[Milanboy]

wow. I thought the giants (and my bet) were toast going into that 9th.

[yisman]

Everybody else that ACTUALLY capped this game saw what I saw. You focussed on the All-Stars and their career #'s. Keep capping like this and you won't get many more treats from Vegas like you did tonight, since you obviously took the Giants and then changed it to STL after everyone started telling you about all of the millions of other factors.

You must've been a real treat in school, what with your utter lack of reading comprehension.

I don't know who you think saw the game the way you did.

I was commenting that it was an odd line, and for the 4th time, I didn't even bet the Giants. You want the screenshots of my Cardinals bets? Are you that mentally challenged? Or, you know, you could go to my spreadsheet or to SBR contests, where I took the Cardinals.

[MrShrink]

ORRRRR... You're a noob with the IQ of a gnat that caps based on all-stars and career #'s. Perhaps the person who said in this very thread that they've been telling people how good Westbrook's been and how he should not be slept on saw it the way I did.... Or the other person that mentioned how inconsequential Holliday's absence was... Or the people that said that STL is a better hitting team... ALL OF WHICH I STATED MYSELF. I really couldn't care less what you did with your points or your free contest. Especially since you lost and I cashed.

there are 213 varying factors why you should be taking the cardinals.

sometimes too much emphasis on starting pitching. Yes, Lincecum is much better, but the Cards are the better team. The Holliday comment is ridiculous. They have been winning 60% + without him.

Holliday going on dl 2marro, not a huge deal... Far as this Westbrook/Timmy argument, it is absurd to even mention Westbrook in the same sentence as the Freak, although ive been telling ppl the last month to take Westbrook cause he finally found his sinker and has been kinda undervalued the last month...

all sf has been talking bout since Posey got hurt was that play, i dont think it is a stretch to think they are a little distracted, that and he was basically the only player that scared anyone with a bat on this team.

cards > giants

Hmmmm.... Ya know.... All of the above quotes sound like they just MIGHT be in concurrence with:

Sorry this is late, but, uh..... did you look at the #'s at all? Westbrook's got a lower era and slightly lower whip L3, StL hits R's better and half of SF is injured.

And you stttiiiiiillllll have not asked me to clarify what you didn't understand in my analysis... You just keep stating that YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. I'm always happy to help those less fortunate in the cognition department, so go ahead and shoot, junior. Or you could just shut your yap and stop making an ass out of yourself. YOUR MOVE.

[yisman]

You are hilarious. You are so intent on embarrassing yourself. You repeatedly insisted I bet on the Giants, when I track my wagers in several places, and anyone with an IQ of over 80 could've figured out how to see which side I bet on. Unfortunately, the aforementioned group does not include you.

And you stttiiiiiillllll have not asked me to clarify what you didn't understand in my analysis... You just keep stating that YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. I'm always happy to help those less fortunate in the cognition department, so go ahead and shoot, junior. Or you could just shut your yap and stop making an ass out of yourself. YOUR MOVE.

ORRRRRR you could actually present a well-reasoned argument, backing it up with facts, which you stttiiiiiillllll have yet to do. Don't think I don't understand, though. I am fully aware of the fact that your cognitive processes are not sufficiently developed to accomplish the task I challenged you with. Your enormous ego will not allow you to admit it, so you continue to embarrass yourself with more and more clueless posts. I made a profit on last night's game with live wagers betting the over. I like how you switch to "LOL NOOB U BET ON GIANTS LOL" to "I CASHED U DIDNT HAHA".

Let's make this nice and simple for your overly simplistic and underdeveloped mind: You fail.

[MrShrink]

No facts? I will again post my analysis in response to you stating that Lincecum has better career #'s:

Really? Are you sure? WHY DO YOU THINK THEY PUT THE LINE WHERE THEY DID? Because the public thinks like you do. They say, "The FREAK! And HOLLIDAY is out! What a value!!", and ignore things like this: His pc's been gross (nothing out of the ordinary for Timmy, but still...), his team has trouble hitting anyone and, again, half the team is injured... INCLUDING their starting catcher. No. If I was I would've had as poor an analysis as you. Look at Westbrook's L10. The trend that popped out at me was that he generally has 2 decent outings of 100+ PC, then a mediocre one, and then he settles back onto the saddle. Expected this to be a low-scoring affair that could be decided by the bullpens. STL's pen has pitched better, but has pitched more innings recently. Although Larussa and/or Duncan is probably aware of his PC issue, they'd probably prefer to try to curb that on his next outing when their pen is more rested. That is also a game closer to his next trended mediocre start. Anyways... Those are the reasons that I've already cashed my STL 5th.

What part of that and...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrShrink
Sorry this is late, but, uh..... did you look at the #'s at all? Westbrook's got a lower era and slightly lower whip L3, StL hits R's better and half of SF is injured.


DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?????


You keep avoiding this question concerning the facts and reasoning, that I've now reposted above, by talking about whether or not you played the Cards. I DON"T CARE WHAT YOU DID WITH YOUR POINTS. The point is that you keep saying that you don't understand and that I did not post any factual analysis. If you can't identify the above as such, you should find a bingo site that lets you play with points you get from their forum. Again, if you don't have the resources to go and verify the above stated (for the second time) trend, TS ELIOT.

This definitely the first time I've been told that I failed on a game that I cashed by someone that lost... hilarious. And please... keep the dictionary on your lap. You sound like a child that's calling the school and pretending to be his daddy.

[yisman]

You have already established yourself as an incomparable fool. Now you're just being unsporting by running up the score.

You've been wrong throughout this thread, and your lack of reading comprehension is startling.

I looked at Lincecum's and Westbrook's numbers both over their last few starts, over the season, and throughout their respective careers. Any reasonable person can see that your argument is a failed one.

I sound like a child because I use words you can't understand? Poor MrShrink. Maybe next time you should attend class, son. I don't need a dictionary to befuddle you.

This definitely the first time I've been told that I failed on a game that I cashed by someone that lost... hilarious.

Wait, I thought you were swearing up and down that I bet San Francisco? You better make up your mind. Debating 101.

[BigDan]

Damn you guys still going at it.

Could you stop doing it in this thread? kinda sick of remembering this painful loss.

[MrShrink]

OK... You got me, Yisman! This:
Look at Westbrook's L10. The trend that popped out at me was that he generally has 2 decent outings of 100+ PC, then a mediocre one, and then he settles back onto the saddle.


... was pulled completely out of thin air!!!! CAN'T GET ONE OVER ON THE YISMAN!!!!! Jeeeeeez... You're a sharp one!!!!!

[yisman]

Well, you're definitely not a sharp one. Your lack of self-awareness and enormous ego means you keep it going even though you've been proven wrong.

Hint: adjusting your argument/insults after being embarrassed doesn't help your cause.

[MrShrink]

Well, you're definitely not a sharp one. Your lack of self-awareness and enormous ego means you keep it going even though you've been proven wrong. Hint: adjusting your argument/insults after being embarrassed doesn't help your cause.

I've been proven wrong? I've adjusted my argument? You've found a correlation between my "self-awareness" and my actions in this thread? All stated without ANY specifics as to what you could POSSIBLY be talking about? AGAIN? Ummm... OK..... I guess I'll be the one to start repeating myself....


CAN'T GET ONE OVER ON THE YISMAN!!!!!!!

[yisman]

Well, let's see.

First it was, "lol ur stupid u picked san fran what a dumb bet."
Then it was, "lol u lost u picked st louis."
Then it was "lol i cant understand your language so ima call u a kid."

I adjusted my vocabulary for you. I hope you can understand it now.

Yes, you've been proven wrong, because as I said, I track my wagers in several places (two places here on SBR, and I also have my record on Covers, which includes this pick and many others), which you could've easily seen.

[MrShrink]

Well, let's see. First it was, "lol ur stupid u picked san fran what a dumb bet." Then it was, "lol u lost u picked st louis." Then it was "lol i cant understand your language so ima call u a kid." I adjusted my vocabulary for you. I hope you can understand it now. Yes, you've been proven wrong, because as I said, I track my wagers in several places (two places here on SBR, and I also have my record on Covers, which includes this pick and many others), which you could've easily seen.

If I cared what your pick was... Which has not been my focal point at any time... My point all along was that you baselessy paraded my posts as personal attacks, falsehoods, made-up trends, etc... I merely expressed my doubt that you went against what you stated as an undervalued play on a "big advantage at starting pitcher" against a "lineup (that) is not very formidable without" one of their All-Stars. You stated that you took the Cards after the game started, and then CONTINUED TO MAKE YOUR CASE AGAINST THE PLAY. HMMM... KINDA FISHY... Really don't care what you did with your points, though... Anyways...

100 POINTS TO WHOMEVER CAN IDENTIFY WHERE I SAID ANY OF THESE THINGS IN THIS THREAD:

1. LOL

2. UR STUPID

3. WHAT A DUMB BET

4. IMA (instead of "I'm going to", or something to that effect... I haven't gone through and checked for any of these, so if it's a typo that doesn't mean something to that effect, it doesn't count)


Obviously, the 100 points will be given out in 2 point increments per day (PLEASE... try not to hurt my feelings for not being a pro... outward approval and tags on internet msg boards mean so much to me, and I know that I could never be so blessed...). Yes, you are eligible for the 100 points as well, Yisman. So since you quoted it yourself it should be a snap, huh, big boy? There will be a consolation prize of 4 pts to the first 3 people that spend the time attempting to verify his lies... *AHEM*... I mean... QUOTES (You are excluded from the consolation prize, Yisman. I'm not giving you points for lieing and then identifying it)... Because it's pretty obvious that he's NOT attempting to smear me and save himself some face on the 2nd page of this thread with false quotes from the first one that he assumes will pass... Yisman is WAY too mature and egoless for that...

SO GO GET THOSE FREE POINTS PEOPLE!! FIRST COME FIRST SERVE!!!!

[MrShrink]

In order to collect the 100 pts, just post the post#. If you can't find it, just be one of the first three to say so. I'll begin giving out the consolation prizes tomorrow so that anyone can look through and try to collect the 100.

[yisman]

Uh, I was paraphrasing. It doesn't seem like you've graduated high school, though, so it's no surprise that you don't know what paraphrasing is.

You stated that you took the Cards after the game started, and then CONTINUED TO MAKE YOUR CASE AGAINST THE PLAY. HMMM... KINDA FISHY... Really don't care what you did with your points, though... Anyways...

I hope you don't gamble with your money.

I bet the Cardinals with cash, not points, and my argument was against the line. There's a difference between "this team should be favored by more" and "I'm betting this team." You don't seem to be able to distinguish nuances.

I liked the Cardinals, but I felt that logically, due to he betting market, the Giants should have been favored. Is that so hard to understand? I guess for you it is.

[Jakesteen]

I definitely like the KID. Lincicum will have a good game.

[MrShrink]

If that's what you call paraphrasing, and not what most would refer to as continuing to attempt to childishly smear me in order to save face, I apologize. As far as not comprehending your awkward attempts at using vocabulary that most unintelligent fools would consider "smart-speak"... Well, I guess I should buy a dictionary. And as far as you continuing to argue against everyone's points about why the Cards were a good play throughout this thread after you stated that the Giants were an undervalued play on a team with a "big advantage at starting pitcher" against a "lineup (that) is not very formidable without" one of their All-Stars.... I must've imagined all that... Golly gee... I feel flat-out DUMB. All apologies, sir. I will state it again....



CAN'T GET ONE OVER ON THE YISMAN!!!!!!!

[yisman]

So now my English is awkward because it's over your head? I apologize. I'll try to dumb it down further for you.

I never said the Giants were an "undervalued team". I simply stated my case for why they should've been favored.