cubs and o's have lost money each of the last 6 years

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mofome
    SBR Posting Legend
    • 12-19-07
    • 13003

    #1
    cubs and o's have lost money each of the last 6 years
    make it 7 for each. Os are too awful to adjust prices for and the cubs are always going to be over-hyped. those will be the teams to fade.
  • Iwinyourmoney
    SBR Posting Legend
    • 04-18-07
    • 18368

    #2
    cubs suck.
    Comment
    • 20Four7
      SBR Hall of Famer
      • 04-08-07
      • 6703

      #3
      I have 4 teams that were worse than the O's last year. The O's were -15 units by my calculations.

      Orioles -15.00
      Pirates -15.78
      Athletics-16.42
      Astros -18.56
      Giants -21.33
      Comment
      • mofome
        SBR Posting Legend
        • 12-19-07
        • 13003

        #4
        Originally posted by 20Four7
        I have 4 teams that were worse than the O's last year. The O's were -15 units by my calculations.

        Orioles -15.00
        Pirates -15.78
        Athletics-16.42
        Astros -18.56
        Giants -21.33

        balt -1896 and down 6 years running according to Michael Murray.
        Comment
        • 20Four7
          SBR Hall of Famer
          • 04-08-07
          • 6703

          #5
          Losing teams:
          D-backs are betting better but I wished I'd faded them for the 2004 season.

          2006:
          Reds 80-82 -0.01
          Yankees 97-65 -2.04
          White Sox 90-72 -3.13
          Red Sox 86-76 -3.98
          Mariners 78-84 -4.14
          Diamondbacks 76-86 -4.89
          Rockies 76-86 -6.05
          Rangers 80-82 -6.25
          Phillies 85-77 -6.50
          Nationals 71-91 -7.31
          Astros 82-80 -12.08
          Orioles 70-92 -12.61
          Pirates 67-95 -12.82
          Giants 76-85 -13.48
          Brewers 75-87 -13.61
          Indians 78-84 -15.13
          Cardinals 84-78 -16.14
          Braves 79-83 -16.85
          Devil Rays 61-101 -18.72
          Cubs 66-96 -24.55

          2005
          Mets 83-79 -3.85
          Reds 73-89 -7.76
          Diamondbacks 77-85 -8.40
          Giants 75-87 -8.83
          Twins 83-79 -9.04
          Padres 82-80 -9.15
          Rockies 67-95 -12.52
          Marlins 83-79 -16.03
          Yankees 95-67 -16.24
          Cubs 79-83 -16.83
          Pirates 67-95 -17.99
          Royals 56-106 -19.78
          Tigers 71-91 -20.25
          Mariners 69-93 -20.34
          Orioles 74-88 -20.37
          Dodgers 71-91 -25.33


          2004
          Indians 80-82 -0.40
          Nationals 67-95 -1.25
          Phillies 86-76 -1.55
          Orioles 78-84 -1.70
          Devil Rays 70-91 -2.55
          White Sox 83-79 -2.80
          Red Sox 98-64 -3.80
          Athletics 91-71 -5.10
          Astros 92-70 -6.40
          Rockies 68-94 -7.80
          Pirates 72-89 -8.00
          Tigers 72-90 -8.35
          Mets 71-91 -12.25
          Brewers 67-94 -16.20
          Marlins 83-79 -17.25
          Blue Jays 67-94 -19.10
          Cubs 89-73 -19.95
          Royals 58-104 -25.70
          Mariners 63-99 -28.70
          Diamondbacks 51-111 -60.15
          Comment
          • 5 star bomb
            SBR Hall of Famer
            • 10-12-07
            • 5370

            #6
            Cubs are the best team in the NL Central. Fade with caution
            Comment
            • 20Four7
              SBR Hall of Famer
              • 04-08-07
              • 6703

              #7
              Originally posted by mofome
              balt -1896 and down 6 years running according to Michael Murray.
              He has them down 1896 units. If so I don't think that's correct, or is it 1896 over 6 years. I'm at work so I don't have a lot of complete data here. I'm not following what the -1896 means.
              Comment
              • mofome
                SBR Posting Legend
                • 12-19-07
                • 13003

                #8
                Originally posted by 20Four7
                He has them down 1896 units. If so I don't think that's correct, or is it 1896 over 6 years. I'm at work so I don't have a lot of complete data here. I'm not following what the -1896 means.
                18 units
                Comment
                • 20Four7
                  SBR Hall of Famer
                  • 04-08-07
                  • 6703

                  #9
                  Ok that is better, I may be slightly incorrect here but at the end of the day being down 15 units or being down 18 is still down.
                  Comment
                  • mofome
                    SBR Posting Legend
                    • 12-19-07
                    • 13003

                    #10
                    Originally posted by 20Four7
                    Ok that is better, I may be slightly incorrect here but at the end of the day being down 15 units or being down 18 is still down.

                    Comment
                    Search
                    Collapse
                    SBR Contests
                    Collapse
                    Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                    Collapse
                    Working...