How come the lines don't take into account past postseason success and failure?

CHOPTALK · Oct 7, 2016

There is absolutely no way the Boston/Cleveland game should have been a pickem when you put the past postseason failures into the line .

What an easy winner .

The home team a pickem against one of the worst post season starters of all time .

This should have been -150 at least

slapshot · Oct 7, 2016

Yeah Price is no Bumgarner

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

Price is not one of the worst postseason starters of all-time... everyone forgets that tiebreaker play-in game to get into the Wild Card Game in 2013 (before the Rays faced Cleveland), when Price threw an absolute gem in Texas... that game doesn't count in his postseason stats, though, because it was technically game no. 163. But that's the perfect example of how great Price can still be in high-pressure postseason situations. Also, he's had his fair share of playoff outings where he'd be unhurt able for the first 5 or 6 innings, before unraveling in his final frame. That's a very fixable issue

At most, the game should've been featured with the -120/+100 dynamic, but I understand them electing to settle on a pick em.

PatsFan1283 · Oct 7, 2016

I don't know much about Price but usually most who are trying to price the games don't put value into small sample sizes. How he pitched this season is much more important than how he pitched in some 2012 playoff game.

Especially if there are no real other changes like October weather being a factor.

"Clutch" might be something fans like to use, but unless there is a lot of evidence a guy truly raises his game then it is tough to price in. It is mostly for the airwaves with some exceptions.

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

*Unhurtable = Unhittable

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

PatsFan1283 said:
I don't know much about Price but usually most who are trying to price the games don't put value into small sample sizes. How he pitched this season is much more important than how he pitched in some 2012 playoff game.

Especially if there are no real other changes like October weather being a factor.

"Clutch" might be something fans like to use, but unless there is a lot of evidence a guy truly raises his game then it is tough to price in. It is mostly for the airwaves with some exceptions.

Eh, now if I may ironically defend Chop's point of view, it's a relatively large sample size. However, his playoff stats wouldn't be as bad if they counted that aforementioned "game no. 163" I mentioned in my above post. But still, clutchness and how you handle pressure -- if documented over a decent sample size (rather than small) -- should absolutely be weighed when determining a line. And that's the case with someone like Price, who has an extensive track record in the postseason

PatsFan1283 · Oct 7, 2016

For instance, back when I followed baseball. Josh Beckett was a machine in the postseason, but it was < 12-15 starts.

Should the oddsmakers price him like he is Kershaw? Or even a top 10 pitcher? Can be tough for them to make a big leap like that based on so few starts.

I do think there is some value in assessing cold weather pitchers as that is an entirely different environment than the regular season but I am not very knowledgeable about it.

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

12-15 postseason starts is definitely a healthy enough number to label a large track record in the postseason. And you are indeed correct with your memory, Beckett was a reliable playoff workhorse from your days betting and following baseball.

But to treat him like Kershaw in assessing a line would be too excessive; it should have a slight, considerable effect on the line, but not be the deciding factor that ultimately dictates it

PatsFan1283 · Oct 7, 2016

Kershaw extreme but do you price Beckett as a top 10 pitcher or top 15?

His postseason results were the best in the league at the time probably.

CHOPTALK · Oct 7, 2016

PatsFan1283 said:
For instance, back when I followed baseball. Josh Beckett was a machine in the postseason, but it was < 12-15 starts.

Should the oddsmakers price him like he is Kershaw? Or even a top 10 pitcher? Can be tough for them to make a big leap like that based on so few starts.

I do think there is some value in assessing cold weather pitchers as that is an entirely different environment than the regular season but I am not very knowledgeable about it.

Thats what im saying the line on this game is the same line that it would have been if it was the same 2 pitchers in the 3rd week of July.
If they would have put Price past post postseason failures into the line it would have probably been -150 or more.

So it's up to the player to decide if the postseason failures of the past is worth making a play.

As for me I deemed it a great play and got an easy winner

CHOPTALK · Oct 7, 2016

Call_Me_Marquee said:
12-15 postseason starts is definitely a healthy enough number to label a large track record in the postseason. And you are indeed correct with your memory, Beckett was a reliable playoff workhorse from your days betting and following baseball.

But to treat him like Kershaw in assessing a line would be too excessive; it should have a slight, considerable effect on the line, but not be the deciding factor that ultimately dictates it

If today's game was game 115 of the regular season same teams, same pitchers, same building. Don't you think the line would have been about the same as it was today?

I don't think they priced any of his past postseason failures into this line .

PatsFan1283 · Oct 7, 2016

Seems like the Price was wrong.

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

Chop, what I think also went into the linesmakers' thinking was their desire to toy around with the public.

Red Sox are a huge public team, as we all know, and after dropping Game 1, I think Vegas wanted to appeal to the "Well, the Red Sox fell down 1-0 in the series, so no way they go down 2-0 with Price!!" public moron audience, and I'm sure they accomplished raping the majority of those idiots lol

You, obviously, recognized the sharp portion of the bet, and will rightfully be rewarded for it

If you ask me, the one criminally-incorrect line Vegas left on the board (although they did change it eventually) was the Rangers/Blue Jays over/under. I mean, 9?? I laughed when I saw that opening line; then I pounded it for $200, and laughed more as I saw it fall to 8.5, then 8. Complete disrespect for Darvish, and especially for a 20-game winner like JA Happ. By comparison, Darvish faced Matt Andriese of the Rays just last week in Texas, also drawing a line as high as 9. Like he's been doing a lot lately (except today), he was excellent, and the under in that one won without a sweat. Vegas knew they made a mistake right away and hence why they moved that line down in today's over/under

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

CHOPTALK said:
If today's game was game 115 of the regular season same teams, same pitchers, same building. Don't you think the line would have been about the same as it was today?

I don't think they priced any of his past postseason failures into this line .

Yup, you are right in that regard. I'd say if this was game 115, the odds would be the same, but if they properly weighed Price's lack of postseason success, should've been Indians -120, Red Sox +100. Just thought -150 would've been too much

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

PatsFan1283 said:
Seems like the Price was wrong.

Hahaha

CHOPTALK · Oct 7, 2016

Well the sportsbooks may choose not to price stuff like being clutch or not being clutch but I've seen enough baseball to know that it really is a real thing. Some people do better under pressure then other people.
This is true in every walk of life not just sports

CHOPTALK · Oct 7, 2016

Call_Me_Marquee said:
Chop, what I think also went into the linesmakers' thinking was their desire to toy around with the public.

Red Sox are a huge public team, as we all know, and after dropping Game 1, I think Vegas wanted to appeal to the "Well, the Red Sox fell down 1-0 in the series, so no way they go down 2-0 with Price!!" public moron audience, and I'm sure they accomplished raping the majority of those idiots lol

You, obviously, recognized the sharp portion of the bet, and will rightfully be rewarded for it

If you ask me, the one criminally-incorrect line Vegas left on the board (although they did change it eventually) was the Rangers/Blue Jays over/under. I mean, 9?? I laughed when I saw that opening line; then I pounded it for $200, and laughed more as I saw it fall to 8.5, then 8. Complete disrespect for Darvish, and especially for a 20-game winner like JA Happ. By comparison, Darvish faced Matt Andriese of the Rays just last week in Texas, also drawing a line as high as 9. Like he's been doing a lot lately (except today), he was excellent, and the under in that one won without a sweat. Vegas knew they made a mistake right away and hence why they moved that line down in today's over/under

Yea I hit the under 9 hard myself .
Then I found out the weather was so bad the 2 teams did not even get to take batting practice before the game. Then I loved it even more . By the time I found that out it was already 8 though

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

CHOPTALK said:
Well the sportsbooks may choose not to price stuff like being clutch or not being clutch but I've seen enough baseball to know that it really is a real thing. Some people do better under pressure then other people.
This is true in every walk of life not just sports

Truer words couldn't be spoken, my friend. Couldn't agree more

To me, in fact, the human element (and reading player quotes, trying to get a beat on someone's mindset) is just as important, if not more important, tan any stats out there. Hands down.

Call_Me_Marquee · Oct 7, 2016

CHOPTALK said:
Yea I hit the under 9 hard myself .
Then I found out the weather was so bad the 2 teams did not even get to take batting practice before the game. Then I loved it even more . By the time I found that out it was already 8 though

Hahah really?? I didn't even know that! I always make sure to look at weather reports for games, but got a late start this morning on my own handicapping for all four games, and with that being the first one, I kinda had to bypass the weather factor. Damn would've threw a little more on it, but as you said, by the time that got out, it was probably already 8/8.5 everywhere.

$tinky · Oct 7, 2016

I think it is factored into the line. I just don't think its a 50 cent difference. Probably more of a 15 or 20 cent difference. Pay attention to Bumgarner's number when he pitches again. I bet its not the same as it would be in the regular season.