Speaker 1: Come check it down, then come now down. Then Wednesday morning,
Speaker 1: August sixteenth, twenty twenty three, it is the Beating the
Speaker 1: Book Podcast. It's Gil Alexander decided to get off my
Speaker 1: behind podcast season. Of course NFL season upon us very soon.
Speaker 1: I think we're three weeks away. We're gonna, of course,
Speaker 1: have the Megapod each and every Thursday. Todd Wishnev and
Speaker 1: Jeff parlay the staples and the rotating guests from week
Speaker 1: to week. The Megapod continues in well now double digit seasons.
Speaker 1: We look forward to that each and every Thursday, beginning
Speaker 1: right prior to week one. Guessing Lines with Christy Andrews
Speaker 1: will continue as well. The first Guessing Lines is always
Speaker 1: the Monday morning after Week one of the NFL season.
Speaker 1: But between now and then a few podcasts an NFL preview,
Speaker 1: a US Open Tennis preview coming up, and in what
Speaker 1: has been the longest running series in the history of
Speaker 1: this podcast, the Beating the Book Podcast and before that,
Speaker 1: the Betting Dork Podcast, we do our Baseball quarterly derivative
Speaker 1: show Q three, twenty twenty three with our buddy base
Speaker 1: winner Mark Borchard from an undisclosed location somewhere in the desert.
Speaker 1: How you doing, Mark?
Speaker 2: That's so cool. We've been doing this for thirteen years. Wow,
Speaker 2: that's nice.
Speaker 1: Thirteen years. I just right before we got on air,
Speaker 1: I went back to c When was the first time.
Speaker 1: This was before we did the Derivative Show. My fifth
Speaker 1: ever Betting Dork episode June twenty third, twenty ten MLB
Speaker 1: saber Metrics Tribute. This is the Betting Dork feed that's
Speaker 1: still up at iTunes Forum. Guest base winner emerges from
Speaker 1: the lab to give his four MLB picks of the day.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you went on those four, but
Speaker 1: I assume it was. Okay, we'll have to check. I'm
Speaker 1: thinking we went four no, oh, we got a totally
Speaker 1: four to oh, totally. The Quarterly Show, though, is the longest, running,
Speaker 1: even longer than the megapod and guessing lines like you
Speaker 1: and I have been doing this. I don't know how
Speaker 1: we got started on this, but Q one, Q two,
Speaker 1: Q three, QU one, Q two and Q three of
Speaker 1: each Major League Baseball season. What Mark and I do,
Speaker 1: for those who are unfamiliar, is we do we call
Speaker 1: the MLB Derivatives Betting Show, which is we look at
Speaker 1: the teams that to that point in the season. Obviously
Speaker 1: this is the quarter pole. To this point in the
Speaker 1: season have been the biggest money makers, the biggest losers
Speaker 1: for betters. With a bizarro exercise, if you had bet
Speaker 1: them every single day, every single game all year as
Speaker 1: a favorite or a dog, doesn't matter what you'd be up,
Speaker 1: what you'd be down. We do that for the money line,
Speaker 1: We do that with splits. We do that with the
Speaker 1: run line as well, the de facto power ranking. Those
Speaker 1: who have listened to the series for a long time
Speaker 1: remember that phrase. We do it for starting pitchers. We
Speaker 1: do it for umpires. Mark is great because you have
Speaker 1: historical umpire numbers, so we see are this year's reliably
Speaker 1: over and under umpires when they're calling balls and strikes
Speaker 1: historically corroborated by Mark's numbers as well. All designed to
Speaker 1: make you, you know, to get you to make smarter bets.
Speaker 1: We also do first five inning numbers and proprietary first
Speaker 1: inning numbers. Again, the whole purpose of this is not
Speaker 1: to say, oh, look what's happened, but it's determined what's
Speaker 1: narrative and what's predictive and Mark for those who are
Speaker 1: just listening to the podcast side, we did this on
Speaker 1: the radio side yesterday, and I wish we had done
Speaker 1: this on the podcast side yesterday too, but that's just luck.
Speaker 1: And would you like to explain to folks what happened yesterday?
Speaker 1: Yesterday when we did this, it was awesome.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know, we're.
Speaker 1: Talking about talking about the first yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, So seven reno oh wolda is worst worse
Speaker 2: in baseball? And Gil actually put out a play, which
Speaker 2: he never does, and well, I shouldn't say that because
Speaker 2: you're spot playing. So this was a spot play. It
Speaker 2: was a great spot play, and you bet it a
Speaker 2: bunch of different ways. I personally bet it drawing no bet,
Speaker 2: which is cool. You can get that nowadays. Uh, Braves
Speaker 2: first inning draw no bet, and we got a three
Speaker 2: run homer I think with two out skill correct me
Speaker 2: if we.
Speaker 1: Did with two outs. So again, it was like I
Speaker 1: bet the Braves. We found out on the show yesterday
Speaker 1: doing the first inning numbers. Is that seven reno? Yeah,
Speaker 1: the worst on base percentage against it in the first
Speaker 1: inning this year. And the Braves have the best run
Speaker 1: differential in the first day this year, and fad the
Speaker 1: Braves run differential in the first inning is better than
Speaker 1: all but like five major league club's entire season run differential,
Speaker 1: and so it's it's rare that those two things align.
Speaker 1: And so it triggered a bet on the Braves at
Speaker 1: plus one forty nine and plus one forty first inning
Speaker 1: to score a run. And then also Braves run line
Speaker 1: first five Braves, you know, minus a half run, Braves
Speaker 1: full game, minus one and a half. So it was
Speaker 1: just a great day. But again, it just the confluence
Speaker 1: of events on that. So hopefully you know there's something
Speaker 1: on this show that can sort of trigger maybe not
Speaker 1: quite as precisely as that one, but something moving forward.
Speaker 1: Shall we begin, sir, sounds good, Gil, All right, let's
Speaker 1: do it. Let's go to teams. This courtesy of Covers
Speaker 1: dot com, and we'll roll through these because these we
Speaker 1: went through this yesterday and it's somewhat surprising, not the
Speaker 1: very top one. It is not surprising to anybody that
Speaker 1: the Baltimore Orioles, again, if you would bet them every
Speaker 1: game this year as a favorite, as a dog, whatever
Speaker 1: Bizarro exercise, if you'd bet them every game this year
Speaker 1: on the money line, you'd be up twenty six plus units.
Speaker 1: That's even after they lost yesterday. You'd still be up
Speaker 1: twenty six units, which is more than ten units more
Speaker 1: than the next most profitable team, which is interestingly the
Speaker 1: Washington Nationals, who despite a fifty three and sixty seven
Speaker 1: record in the standings, would have you up fifteen point
Speaker 1: three eight units per covers because they're a dog so often.
Speaker 1: Cincinnati rounds out the top three Texas, Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta
Speaker 1: maybe more predictable teams after that. But are you surprised
Speaker 1: Washington and Cincinnati are there?
Speaker 2: Washington is super surprising because you just wouldn't think that
Speaker 2: they're you know, it's not like their pitching's great by
Speaker 2: any means. Well, I think there was an interesting stat
Speaker 2: I saw the other day Washington versus ground ball pitchers
Speaker 2: per Baseball Reference second Best OPS and Baseball. I thought
Speaker 2: that was super interesting because I would have never thought that.
Speaker 1: It's interesting. Do you, by the way, Baltimore, Washington, Cincinnati
Speaker 1: the only ones that would have you up double digits. Baltimore,
Speaker 1: as I said, twenty six plus units, Washington fifteen point
Speaker 1: three to eight, Cincinnati thirteen point nine to one units
Speaker 1: to the positive again betting them on the money line
Speaker 1: every game this season? Do you expect the Baltimore thing
Speaker 1: to continue. Do you expect the Washington thing to continue?
Speaker 2: I think the Oriols are gonna come down a little bit.
Speaker 2: You Look, you know, I do something on my side, Gil.
Speaker 2: I don't know if anybody's checked this out, but it's
Speaker 2: actually pretty good as far as like saying, well, has
Speaker 2: this team been lucky? Has this team been lucky? Oriol
Speaker 2: second luckiest on my site based on and I use
Speaker 2: weightter runs, creative plus, expert minus, and defensive run saved
Speaker 2: if you compare the standard wins to the expected wins.
Speaker 2: So I think that they've been been pretty lucky. Gil.
Speaker 2: So I would say, you know, right now, there's six
Speaker 2: seventeen winning percentage. Too bad. You can't make this bet.
Speaker 2: Are they going to be under six seventeen winning percentage?
Speaker 2: I would say yes, Gil.
Speaker 1: It's interesting because you were talking, by the way, you
Speaker 1: like the Padres for those who care about if those
Speaker 1: who listen to this today that you're actually on the
Speaker 1: padres against the Oriols. We were talking on a Numbers
Speaker 1: game this morning. The Orioles twenty two and eleven in
Speaker 1: one run games this year. That is the best one
Speaker 1: run record probably by far. Well, No, the Milwaukee Brewers
Speaker 1: have something to say about that they're twenty four and ten,
Speaker 1: but the Oriols twenty two and eleven in one run
Speaker 1: games and yes, by pythag with Aagrian theory and Bill
Speaker 1: James theory, they ought to have won seven games less
Speaker 1: than they have seven games fewer. And we talked about
Speaker 1: the Padres who have been the most unfortunate. They ought
Speaker 1: to be ten games better than they are in the
Speaker 1: standings six and nineteen and one run games, oh and
Speaker 1: ten and extras. Oh my god.
Speaker 2: Anyway, you know it gives It's funny when we do
Speaker 2: this show. I come up with all these ideas because
Speaker 2: I love how your mind works, and it just I
Speaker 2: listen to what you say and it kind of stimulates
Speaker 2: my mind and I'm like thinking, oh, it'd be really
Speaker 2: cool to have like a chart with like winning percentage
Speaker 2: for one run games, like by every team, so you
Speaker 2: could see, Okay, well this is what they're winning percentage is,
Speaker 2: and then kind of like, you know, I guess if
Speaker 2: you're doing like stock or four X charts or something,
Speaker 2: see if they're you know, if it goes up and
Speaker 2: down type thing. It would be super interesting. It's something
Speaker 2: to think about on the off season. I have all
Speaker 2: these projects skill in my mind to do in the
Speaker 2: off season.
Speaker 1: It's great. I would love to see all your stuff.
Speaker 1: It's just a trove, a treasure trove of baseball stuff.
Speaker 1: We stray. I didn't mean to stray all that. But
Speaker 1: by the way, the worst teams on the money line,
Speaker 1: no surprise, Oakland would have cost you nearly thirty units
Speaker 1: over twenty nine units in the red this year. By
Speaker 1: the way, if you're betting Oakland each and every game
Speaker 1: this year on the money line, something's probably wrong with you,
Speaker 1: because for the purposes of this bizarro exercise, they'd be
Speaker 1: the biggest hemorrhagure. The Mets would be the second worst,
Speaker 1: good god, over twenty three units to the negative. Kansas
Speaker 1: City would be over twenty two units to the negative.
Speaker 1: The Padres would be fourth worst, followed by the White Sox.
Speaker 1: The Padres are the one, I mean, goodness, So you
Speaker 1: you actually think the question of will this be sustainable?
Speaker 1: You actually think the Padres based on you know, and
Speaker 1: I just mentioned about their pythagora, and you don't think
Speaker 1: this is going to continue. You think they'll actually turn upwards.
Speaker 2: Oh you do see their winning percentage. As it stands
Speaker 2: right now, the standard winning percentage on im MLB dot
Speaker 2: com is four seventy five. I think they should be
Speaker 2: at five sixty six win percentage. So they're the unluckiest
Speaker 2: team for me, gil uh in baseball. So yeah, I think,
Speaker 2: and you just think about that. You you've got you know,
Speaker 2: you've got Snell and Darvish and uh Musgrove, like the
Speaker 2: problem with the Padres and so this is I guess
Speaker 2: I'm glad I'm talking about this because so you can say, well,
Speaker 2: they're unlucky, they're one run games that sort of thing.
Speaker 2: But like if your bullpen's lousy, like you're gonna probably
Speaker 2: lose more run one run games than if your bullpen's elaked, right,
Speaker 2: And so like I'd like to talk about project. There's
Speaker 2: another project. There's the number two on this on the show,
Speaker 2: like like you know, chart your good bullpens and how
Speaker 2: how that corresponds with one run games and that that's
Speaker 2: an int thought.
Speaker 1: Is to me, this is the whole key to the Giants, right, Like,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the it's the bottom up approach, if
Speaker 1: you will. It's you know, again we've said this before
Speaker 1: you think about their three World Series championships. At the
Speaker 1: beginning of the last decade, the most consistent thing they
Speaker 1: had was the bullpen. I think like nine Giants played
Speaker 1: in all three World Series teams, but I think four
Speaker 1: of them were out of the bullpen. So they figured
Speaker 1: that out. The Kansas City Royals, remember and their run
Speaker 1: to two World Series they won one of them. They
Speaker 1: were they figured out, we don't have the payroll of
Speaker 1: other teams. Let's go seven, eight, nine, let's get those
Speaker 1: innings solidified. And so I think those are the precursors
Speaker 1: to this. You watch Giants games, You're like, oh, here
Speaker 1: comes Trunk, Kuilo, Camillo. They're gonna win this, right, So
Speaker 1: I really think there's a lot to that. By the way, again,
Speaker 1: brief aside, we're gonna have a lot of asides on this.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing, but I did the thing yesterday on a
Speaker 1: numbers game. I'll do it for the podcast audience too,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, where are the best bets to
Speaker 1: make the postseason? Right now, with roughly forty games for
Speaker 1: everybody left, obviously, give or take a few games, where
Speaker 1: are the best bets to make the playoffs? Where the
Speaker 1: best bets to win division in Baseball. And so my exercise,
Speaker 1: and I'm curious where you come in on this. My
Speaker 1: exercise was, i will take the Fangrafts projections, probabilities to
Speaker 1: make the postseason and to win a vision, and the
Speaker 1: Baseball Reference ones, and then I'll juxtapose it against the
Speaker 1: actual betting line. And so the five bets that came
Speaker 1: up as triggered bets, the bets that show value to
Speaker 1: make the postseason. The Mariners at plus one eighty at DraftKings.
Speaker 1: This was yesterday. They ought to be if you believe
Speaker 1: the Baseball Reference numbers, they ought to be plus one
Speaker 1: twenty three. So that would be a bet per my exercise.
Speaker 1: The Cubs to make the postseason. If you believe the
Speaker 1: Baseball Reference percentages, you know the betting line is minus
Speaker 1: one twenty five. It should be north of minus two hundred.
Speaker 1: The Giants, if you believe fangraphs, the yes for them
Speaker 1: to make the postseason at minus one forty five is
Speaker 1: a great bet still despite their tough schedule, that ought
Speaker 1: to be north well north of two hundred. And then
Speaker 1: to win a division. It's the Cubs again, if you
Speaker 1: believe the Baseball Reference projection, it should be about plus
Speaker 1: one twenty two. You're getting plus two ten on them
Speaker 1: yesterday to win the Central, the NL Central, and the Rangers.
Speaker 1: Minus one sixty five actually represents value if you believe
Speaker 1: the Baseball Reference projection of seventy two point one percent
Speaker 1: to win the division that ought to be by this
Speaker 1: two sixty so three division. Excuse me, three playoffs, two divisions?
Speaker 1: Do you agree with those? Do you disagree with any
Speaker 1: of them? And what additional ones do you have?
Speaker 2: We'll start with with Rangers. Rangers, by my projections, should
Speaker 2: be winning that division seventy one point seven percent of
Speaker 2: the time, so minus two to fifty three would be
Speaker 2: a fair price there.
Speaker 1: Love it.
Speaker 2: And then if we talked about the playoffs, as Jim
Speaker 2: Moore would say, you're looking at the Cubs minus one
Speaker 2: twenty five. And I have the Cubs and this is
Speaker 2: they were minus two to seventeen yesterday. Now they should
Speaker 2: be minus one seventy five because they did lose to
Speaker 2: the White Sox for whatever reason yesterday. But there's still
Speaker 2: good value there. And then the Giants. I have the
Speaker 2: Giants to make the playoffsus two thirty three. One of
Speaker 2: the things that the local guy uh the d Backs
Speaker 2: are priced right now by my numbers at four to ten,
Speaker 2: I think you can get like like four fifty for them,
Speaker 2: So d Backs, as you know. And actually the best
Speaker 2: value from a from a long shot standpoint, by my
Speaker 2: numbers was is the Red Sox. I've got him at
Speaker 2: twenty three point two percent three thirty one. You can
Speaker 2: get him in the market at least you could yesterday
Speaker 2: at plus six hundred, So that was a good play too.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, so d Backs and Red Sox you would
Speaker 1: add to the mix there to make the postseason? What
Speaker 1: about real quick? Before we move on, I apologize for
Speaker 1: the asides right off the top. Jason Weingarten came on
Speaker 1: a Numbers game earlier this morning. He just made a
Speaker 1: bet the Rays to miss the playoffs at twelve to one.
Speaker 1: They're five games clear of being on the outside looking in.
Speaker 2: I got a ninety seven point eight percent chance for
Speaker 2: the raise to.
Speaker 1: So twelve to one would not represent value to you
Speaker 1: based on your numbers. Okay, okay, let's continue. So again,
Speaker 1: those are the uh, those are the you know again? Baltimore, Washington,
Speaker 1: Cincinnati the best money line teams for betters thus far
Speaker 1: this year. The worst Oakland the Mets, Kansas City, and
Speaker 1: San Diego. By the way, san Diego not to make
Speaker 1: the playoffs. You didn't bet that, Huh.
Speaker 2: San Diego is kind of like right where it needs
Speaker 2: to be is like plus four hundred, and they're like
Speaker 2: plus four hundred to make the playoffs.
Speaker 1: So okay. By the way, if you were curious about
Speaker 1: the splits about that money line, Texas is the best
Speaker 1: home money line team. By the way, overall when we
Speaker 1: talk about money, Texas ended up fourth, as we mentioned,
Speaker 1: but they are the best home money line team if
Speaker 1: we've met them at home nine point four units. That is,
Speaker 1: almost all of their winnings are at home. Quite frankly,
Speaker 1: they're barely a winner away. And when you talk about away,
Speaker 1: we talked a little bit about this yesterday Mark the
Speaker 1: Orioles and the Nationals and the Reds, who are one
Speaker 1: two three overall. It's amazing that in the Oriels case,
Speaker 1: almost twenty one of their twenty six units roughly have
Speaker 1: been made on the road. For Washington, they're actually a
Speaker 1: home for super Washington is actually a home loser. They're away.
Speaker 1: Money line would have you up seventeen point five units
Speaker 1: if you just bet that blindly and the same thing
Speaker 1: with Cincinnati. They're actually a home loser incrementally, but a
Speaker 1: huge road winner of almost fifteen units of the positive.
Speaker 1: Does that surprise you that Baltimore, Washington, Cincinnati that almost
Speaker 1: all of their money and again, obviously their prices are
Speaker 1: going to be better, more bang for your buck on
Speaker 1: the road, but for that difference to be that stark
Speaker 1: from home to road.
Speaker 2: We're real definitely. And the Nationals to you because you know,
Speaker 2: you think with these analytics departments and they're good, they're
Speaker 2: strong in Washington too, They've got some they got some
Speaker 2: brilliant people over there, but the Orioles do as well.
Speaker 2: And so you're talking about we've talked about this for
Speaker 2: probably the last five or six years about ball lineup
Speaker 2: construction based on ballpark. So you think that, you know,
Speaker 2: these guys, the smartest guys in baseball are going to
Speaker 2: be like, Okay, well we're going to try to tailor
Speaker 2: our roster pitching roster, hitting roster to the ballpark. And
Speaker 2: so you would think that with the best analytics department,
Speaker 2: they would have better splits at home. So that is
Speaker 2: a little bit surprising to me. Gil.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So what did we read into all that that
Speaker 1: Baltimore is probably not quite that sustainable and the Padres
Speaker 1: will actually have an upswing. Is that probably the headlines
Speaker 1: from that exercise right there?
Speaker 2: I think those are headlines. I think those are good headlines.
Speaker 1: What about run line? This is the de facto power
Speaker 1: rating again. If you're a favorite, you're one and a
Speaker 1: half run favorite. If you're a dog, you're a one
Speaker 1: and a half run dog. The Orioles end up as
Speaker 1: the number one run line team in baseball. That one
Speaker 1: run record has a lot to do with it, although
Speaker 1: actually that one run record says the opposite doesn't. If
Speaker 1: you have a one run record like that where you're
Speaker 1: twenty two and eleven, maybe it wouldn't indicate that you
Speaker 1: would be such a great run line team. But they
Speaker 1: are in fact the number one run line team in
Speaker 1: all of baseball. They would have you up over twenty
Speaker 1: five units, almost exactly the same amount as a money
Speaker 1: line team, followed by Texas, followed by Incinnati Texas almost
Speaker 1: twenty or a little over twenty one units up. This
Speaker 1: per covers Cincinnati almost twenty units up, then followed by
Speaker 1: the Dodgers and the Cubs. But it's the usual suspects
Speaker 1: as far as this year Baltimore, Texas, Cincinnati interesting, whereas
Speaker 1: Washington they're still in the positive, but they're they're not
Speaker 1: nothing to really write home about on the run.
Speaker 2: Line, and I think maybe you break that down favorite
Speaker 2: dog or something. So maybe the Oils are dogs and
Speaker 2: so they're they're they're close, you know, coming coming into
Speaker 2: right game.
Speaker 1: So in Texas that makes sense, right, it makes sense,
Speaker 1: whereas Texas being second, they probably crush you if they're
Speaker 1: a favorite by more than by more than run one
Speaker 1: and half.
Speaker 2: Runs Axas, especially at home. You know, the others displayed
Speaker 2: about the Rangers that there day night splits, and I
Speaker 2: think there's something there. I think there's something with with
Speaker 2: with the rhythms and stuff. But if you if you
Speaker 2: you can't get day night splits on fangrafts, but you
Speaker 2: can get day night splits on MLB dot Com if
Speaker 2: you go there, they're they're they're up at the So
Speaker 2: I personally think, after having done this for such a
Speaker 2: long time, I think there's something with with the day
Speaker 2: night Splitskay.
Speaker 1: Since you bring it up, I got a question. Do
Speaker 1: you when I when I say day night splits, starting
Speaker 1: pitcher in your entire career doing this does someone leap
Speaker 1: to mind.
Speaker 2: Because I I don't really use it as much as
Speaker 2: I think I should. Gil. I mean, that's that's something
Speaker 2: that you you know, you can uncover a lot of
Speaker 2: bases which no pun intended. Actually maybe there was a
Speaker 2: pun intended on that. But but when you're when you're
Speaker 2: doing this on a daily basis, and when you got
Speaker 2: to crunch fifteen games a day, you know, there's some
Speaker 2: things that that admittedly like I leave out and I
Speaker 2: do a lot, so uh, but that's something I think
Speaker 2: to think about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you know, it's interesting. I you know, what
Speaker 1: if if the picture that comes to mind, and I
Speaker 1: have no numbers to back this up, I just remember
Speaker 1: maybe it was one year where he had this amazing split.
Speaker 1: Remember Brian Banister with the Kansas City Royals.
Speaker 2: My god, yeah, that's a good poll that.
Speaker 1: Was like great in the day and then not so
Speaker 1: great at night. I don't know if it was just
Speaker 1: a one year anomaly. By the way, the worst run
Speaker 1: line team is no surprise. Kansas City's the worst. They
Speaker 1: would have cost you over twenty eight units on the
Speaker 1: run line. If you're betting the Royals every day any
Speaker 1: which way, something's wrong. With you. Mets are second worst
Speaker 1: on the run line, Phillies third worst, Marlin's fourth worst,
Speaker 1: and Brewer's fifth worst. So three, four and five are
Speaker 1: actually potential playoff teams on the run line.
Speaker 2: That's that's super interesting. You know, I don't know, you know,
Speaker 2: I gave out like last week. I think it was
Speaker 2: on Thursday. Philly is an eight to one and miss
Speaker 2: a playoffs. I thought that was pretty valuable. You think
Speaker 2: that bullpen is in question with Alvarado is one of
Speaker 2: these guys and you see this happen. He's not with Judge,
Speaker 2: He's put these guys on the on the ile for
Speaker 2: on the IL for I don't know, like you're taking Okay,
Speaker 2: we'll be back in ten days, you know, a week,
Speaker 2: ten days. Well, this guy's still on the IL. I
Speaker 2: guess he's doing some rehab stuff. But you got to
Speaker 2: wonder what that Alvarado his strikeout rates approaching fifty pct.
Speaker 2: He's a valuable piece to that bullpen.
Speaker 1: That's a big deal, Judge, you might need to be
Speaker 1: on the IL He looks like he's limping around. By
Speaker 1: the way, since you bring him up the Yankees.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, let's go on another side. Because this happened
Speaker 2: at Dodger Stadium the other day. I can't remember. As
Speaker 2: a left fielder for the Rockies, same thing happened to me.
Speaker 2: He hit his toe on underneath the padding there on
Speaker 2: the concrete. It's like, okay, guys, let's fix this, guys.
Speaker 1: Let's fix that. That's it, yeah, because it turns out
Speaker 1: to be a brutal injury in the end. Oftentimes this
Speaker 1: is so this one's a little more nebulous. This is
Speaker 1: starting pitchers who have made or cost betters the most
Speaker 1: money if they bet on that pictures that starter's team
Speaker 1: every time this starter took the mound. Dean Kramer of
Speaker 1: the Baltimore Orioles, it's your number one over thirteen units
Speaker 1: of the positive. You bet the Orioles every time. Dean Kramer,
Speaker 1: the Israeli native Dean Kramer. The Oriols are eighteen and six,
Speaker 1: I believe when he takes the hill. Abbot of the Reds,
Speaker 1: Taiwan Walker of the Phillies is third, and then Gomber
Speaker 1: of the Rockies is fourth. Somehow, there's nothing to any
Speaker 1: of those, are there.
Speaker 2: Especially Gomber? Really? Oh my gosh, wow, that's that. That
Speaker 2: is the surprise of the day.
Speaker 1: For me, that's a surprise because the Rockies are thirteen
Speaker 1: and eleven when he takes the hill, and they're probably
Speaker 1: huge dogs in most of those.
Speaker 2: Right, that's crazy with that, And this is I wanted
Speaker 2: to save this one for the five inning segment, but
Speaker 2: they have the worst of the Rockies have the worst
Speaker 2: fiving run de differential in baseball, worse than the A's like,
Speaker 2: so that's that's that's surprising to me that Austin Gombert
Speaker 2: he gets him today, by the way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well oh you did bet against Austin Gomber. Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that five inning stuff doesn't surprise We'll get to the
Speaker 1: five innings in a minute, but that doesn't surprise me
Speaker 1: because it's cores, right, So if you lose, maybe you
Speaker 1: tend to lose by more.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah, that's interesting observation.
Speaker 1: By the way, worst starting pitchers. Again, this is if
Speaker 1: you happen to bet on their team every time they
Speaker 1: take the hill. Well, no surprise that Jordan Lyles of
Speaker 1: the of the of the Royals, who I think they
Speaker 1: started oh to fifteen with him on the hill this year. Well,
Speaker 1: now that they're now three and twenty He's still the
Speaker 1: biggest hamrhager of cash. He'd have cost you fourteen units.
Speaker 1: Zach Greenky, his teammate, would be second worst. He'd have
Speaker 1: cost you over ten units. And then it's Gildo of
Speaker 1: the Angels. He's been terrible with the Angels by the
Speaker 1: way since the acquisition. He'd have cost you almost ten
Speaker 1: units this year for both of his clubs, the White
Speaker 1: Sox and the Angels. And Jordan Montgomery, who the Rangers
Speaker 1: just acquired, of course before the trade deadline, he would
Speaker 1: have cost you in his days with both Saint Louis
Speaker 1: and Texas, he would have cost you over eight units
Speaker 1: this year. Those are the worst four. So I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying Lyles and Granky are horrible pitchers, but
Speaker 1: their team is just horrible, right, So I mean it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a couple of Royals pitchers probably the bottom.
Speaker 2: You know that that Royals team that they've played a
Speaker 2: little bit better as of late, but you'd look at
Speaker 2: run differentially. You look a lot of the advanced metrics
Speaker 2: that they've been a disappointment. I would say if the
Speaker 2: Royals could be a disappointment, which I think that they
Speaker 2: had better expertations than what they've done this year, so
Speaker 2: they are kind of disappointing even comparing him to their
Speaker 2: own expectations. Guilt.
Speaker 1: Yeah, just some big names, by the way, at the
Speaker 1: bottom of that list, eighth Sandy al Kantara eighth worst.
Speaker 1: I mean, how far is he fallen? He'd have cost
Speaker 1: just seven units this year anyway, because the Marlins are
Speaker 1: nine and fifteen in his games. Blake Snell of the
Speaker 1: Padres is eighth. Remember excuse me ninth. He was a
Speaker 1: big you know, possibility of a trade deadline acquisition. But
Speaker 1: I said the same thing about him and Otani, like
Speaker 1: as bad as the Angels have been since the All
Speaker 1: Star since the trade deadline, I still believe the Angels
Speaker 1: had no choice. Like I just believe they had to
Speaker 1: keep Otani and hope for the best. I felt that
Speaker 1: way about the Padres in a different way, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, I think if Ardi Moreno got rid of Otani, Like,
Speaker 1: what are you telling your fan base, this is the
Speaker 1: greatest player in baseball. You have to keep him in
Speaker 1: try and with the Padres like they were supposed to
Speaker 1: be great. So I don't think you could have got
Speaker 1: rid of Blake's noew, Well, they're eleven and thirteen and
Speaker 1: Blake Snell outings this year, so that would cost better
Speaker 1: six and a half units roughly. And you Darvish is
Speaker 1: eleventh with the Padres eleventh worst in terms of hemorrhaging.
Speaker 2: Money, right, Darvus is surprising because he does play on
Speaker 2: that team, that team, like you know, even by the
Speaker 2: numbers and and I adjusted every day, like they're like
Speaker 2: third in baseball from an offensive like weighted runs created plus,
Speaker 2: which is the standard I guess what people use nowadays,
Speaker 2: and they're they're, uh, they're number three by my rating,
Speaker 2: So you would think that they'd have he would have
Speaker 2: better luck with and he's he's got like a lot
Speaker 2: of really good Sabermetric numbers. So maybe that's the guy
Speaker 2: for me that that'll probably get better than where he's
Speaker 2: at right now.
Speaker 1: Gil, Yeah, let me throw it to you for the umpires,
Speaker 1: because I don't want to my numbers look a little
Speaker 1: yanky here, but you and I isolated an overump yesterday,
Speaker 1: which in terms of what he's doing this year juxtaposed
Speaker 1: against your historical stats actually jibed very well. So you're like, well,
Speaker 1: remember when when a stat Fox or one of these
Speaker 1: sites that puts Umpire assignments on their site. First, if
Speaker 1: you see these particular guys who have a tendency to
Speaker 1: guy to go over under and your bet is going
Speaker 1: to go the other way, maybe it takes you off
Speaker 1: a bet at the very least doesn't necessarily trigger, but
Speaker 1: maybe it takes you off. The guy on the over
Speaker 1: was Edwin Moscoso. Nine of fourteen games this year. He's
Speaker 1: what he's called balls and strikes have gone over and
Speaker 1: he absolutely jibes with your historical numbers to the over.
Speaker 2: He's gil. He's the third highest over umpire by my numbers.
Speaker 2: And so I have like an opinion on this because
Speaker 2: you're like, well, it's only nine percent. You know, from
Speaker 2: a run projection standpoint, I used strikeout percentage and walk
Speaker 2: percentage and you can actually equate that to a run
Speaker 2: expectation quantitatively, and you think, well, it's nine percent, Well
Speaker 2: how much is that? But if you think about it,
Speaker 2: you know, ten percent of a total, that's nine you know,
Speaker 2: that's almost a full run. So it does make a difference.
Speaker 2: And it's certainly something I have in my model from
Speaker 2: a from a total standpoint. It's kind of incorporated into
Speaker 2: the math in the model, but that was the one
Speaker 2: that kind of stood out to me. He's number three,
Speaker 2: he's number one. Would you say number one in baseball
Speaker 2: from an overstandpoint.
Speaker 1: No, he is number two. Well it depends how you
Speaker 1: you know, if by percentage. Well this is listed just
Speaker 1: by the number of over games by percentage, he's not
Speaker 1: number one. Jim Wolf and Hunter Wendelstead are actually nine
Speaker 1: of thirteen to the over. But Edward Moscowsa was nine
Speaker 1: of fourteen to the over, so I mean that's.
Speaker 2: Still there's something there.
Speaker 1: His strike zone is the size of a thimble, you know,
Speaker 1: Like I always say, like you wonder what it is
Speaker 1: with these guys. And by the way, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you see, like to the opposite and this will
Speaker 1: be more in tune with the over with the under guys.
Speaker 1: But like there was a pitch to Justin Turner and
Speaker 1: Boston last night. I don't know if you saw this,
Speaker 1: it's like two inches outside of the strike zone and
Speaker 1: they rang him up, you know, and you're just like,
Speaker 1: what do you do? By the way, and then Gabe
Speaker 1: Kapler for the Giants yesterday, this kid who rose from
Speaker 1: from single A all the way to the big leagues,
Speaker 1: for the Giants this year has been This was his
Speaker 1: second game last night. His name is his name is
Speaker 1: Wade Meckler, and he was like the umpire, Chad Witson
Speaker 1: was calling all of these pitches that were way outside
Speaker 1: of the strike zone strikes on him. So Gabe Kapler
Speaker 1: finally lost his mind. You're killing this kid, like you're
Speaker 1: sucking all the confidence out of him because you're calling
Speaker 1: these pitches way out of the strike zone as strikes.
Speaker 1: He lost his mind. He got tossed. Next two times up,
Speaker 1: Wade Meckler got base hits. I mean, it's really it's
Speaker 1: becoming worse and worse it is.
Speaker 2: And I think I think the other thing too is
Speaker 2: we have better data and the and the presentation of
Speaker 2: where the pitches and the strike zone is really well
Speaker 2: done on the broadcast. So what happens is you see
Speaker 2: a pitch like that and it's they're pivotal. Every game
Speaker 2: has one, Okay, So for for me last night it
Speaker 2: was it was Tommy fam at Batty. They called a
Speaker 2: strike a ball, next pitch got hits a double and
Speaker 2: that was like the key and it worked out for
Speaker 2: me really well. But like, I mean, I think that
Speaker 2: that for what we see. The technology is there to
Speaker 2: be able to and you're a big tennis guy. I've
Speaker 2: seen it done in tennis as kind of a layman
Speaker 2: guy who watches tennis, and it's pretty efficient. It's not
Speaker 2: apprusis to the game. They say, hey, this ball was
Speaker 2: out and you know you called it in or I
Speaker 2: guess vice versa, and it packs all of maybe fifteen
Speaker 2: seconds to say, yeah, that was that was out or in.
Speaker 2: And I think they should institute something like that in
Speaker 2: Major League Baseball.
Speaker 1: Gilt, Yeah, you're so right, first of all, on many accounts.
Speaker 1: One in tennis, it is completely transformed the sport of tennis.
Speaker 1: Right from our childhood, when you know John McEnroe or
Speaker 1: Jimmy Connors would lose it on the lines people or
Speaker 1: on the on the umpire. We don't have that anymore,
Speaker 1: right because the technology is accepted and it's so seamless
Speaker 1: that you just move on. In the minor leagues in baseball,
Speaker 1: Will Hill was talking about that this morning on a
Speaker 1: Numbers game. In the minor leagues, they have a challenge
Speaker 1: system where like the batter taps his helmet or something,
Speaker 1: and it's super seamless. You get like one challenge right
Speaker 1: kind of thing, but like in a high leverage moment
Speaker 1: that could matter. I think that's not going far enough.
Speaker 1: I really don't like it's gotten so bad. And you're
Speaker 1: right about what you said. There is the key from
Speaker 1: a betting standpoint. You happen to have won that bet,
Speaker 1: But we've all been on bets where we legitimately can
Speaker 1: make a case we lost a bet because that batter
Speaker 1: got to stay in the box longer than he should
Speaker 1: have been, and then of course right he hits the
Speaker 1: bases clearing double right after that when it should have
Speaker 1: been strike three. And it is super frustrating. But you know,
Speaker 1: betting is hard enough, so to lose that way really
Speaker 1: pisses you off.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's a big deal, and I think they should
Speaker 2: look at it. They're taking sponsorship money from betting companies
Speaker 2: and fantasy companies, and I think they really should.
Speaker 1: Look at it.
Speaker 2: And I don't know, I don't I don't know if
Speaker 2: the fan has any voice. But if we do, let's, uh,
Speaker 2: I don't know, not play totals for a day or
Speaker 2: something and see how.
Speaker 1: We're going on boycott of totals. Would you remember?
Speaker 2: Funny, it's like if like if you start the Voice
Speaker 2: of Sports betting starts this movement, it's like, let's not
Speaker 2: bet totals for one day, like like Sam it has
Speaker 2: an impat That'd be funny.
Speaker 1: People would be like, fuck you, Gil, we're betting our totals, dammit.
Speaker 2: Not be any total then, like I got about this total.
Speaker 2: I got about this total.
Speaker 1: That's right. I love you, man, but I gotta bet
Speaker 1: this thing. The most reliable under umpires and baseball this year.
Speaker 1: I don't remember who we landed on that jibed with
Speaker 1: you historically yesterday, but I can tell you Doug Eddings
Speaker 1: nine of ten to the under this year, Brian Knight,
Speaker 1: There'sboddy eight of nine to the under, Nate Tomlinson. No,
Speaker 1: that's not right. These are all jacked up. Jeremy Riggs
Speaker 1: ten of twelve to the under.
Speaker 2: Who we mentioned on the show, Jim Wolf was in
Speaker 2: the top Yes, yes, he's in the top ten of
Speaker 2: my under umpires, he's number eight. And then Doug Eddings
Speaker 2: is in the top twelve. I guess he's number twelve. Okay,
Speaker 2: so yeah, there's there's something to that. And gosh, I
Speaker 2: guess I guess Brian Knight has is at one so
Speaker 2: he doesn't even need to start there.
Speaker 1: He is once again, that song is mathematically impossible. Four
Speaker 1: what is it? Well, I wanted It's like a gen
Speaker 1: come true. Two, I want to be with you. Three Girl,
Speaker 1: it's playing to see you're the only one for me.
Speaker 1: Four repeat steps one, two, three, you can never get
Speaker 1: to five to fall in love with me, you can
Speaker 1: never get to it.
Speaker 2: That's never gonna fall in love. I guess that's sad.
Speaker 1: Brian Knight under umpire? So again, what were the under
Speaker 1: the reliably historically under umpires. Who are they?
Speaker 2: Well, Jim Wolf Dougettings And I want to I want
Speaker 2: to say this because I don't know. Like Bill Miller
Speaker 2: is number one by my ratings. He's the number one
Speaker 2: one of my ratings forever. So the guy's not so
Speaker 2: like he's an under umpire. You know, you gotta definitely
Speaker 2: make adjustments with that guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So again, keep that in mind. Maybe they have
Speaker 1: a huge wide strike zones. It's not necessarily does this mean, Oh,
Speaker 1: if these guys are umpires, I should absolutely automatically play
Speaker 1: the under. Oh if Edward Moscoso is the umpire, I
Speaker 1: should automatically play the over. No, should it though perhaps
Speaker 1: give you pause if you're going the other way in
Speaker 1: a game, like if you have an under in an
Speaker 1: Edwin Moscoso game, maybe you should think twice and again.
Speaker 1: These these umpire listings, I always say, stat Fox is
Speaker 1: there another place? I think there's a Twitter account too
Speaker 1: that has these, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's there's umpire Crew, there's umpire Report. There's a
Speaker 2: couple of good umpire umpire sizes right now. Okay, and
Speaker 2: those are two of them. And then but stat fox
Speaker 2: is how long is staff fi? I think stat fox
Speaker 2: pregates us. I think it's stuff still working, so it's
Speaker 2: pretty cool.
Speaker 1: Some people still love it. Yeah, some people still go there.
Speaker 1: Good for them. Okay, let's go to Those were all
Speaker 1: from covers dot com and marks obviously his proprietary numbers
Speaker 1: to corroborate or to go elsewhere with those numbers, this
Speaker 1: comes to us first five inning numbers now for betting,
Speaker 1: which get big big shout out to odds Shark, who
Speaker 1: keeps who compiles this for everybody. I used to do
Speaker 1: them manually. Remember there was a time where like you
Speaker 1: could not find these numbers anywhere, So shout out to
Speaker 1: odds Sharks. Odd Shark pardon me at oddshark dot com.
Speaker 1: The Texas Rangers, as you pointed out earlier, the number
Speaker 1: one first five team in all of baseball. You said,
Speaker 1: based on run differential. Well, they're the number one money
Speaker 1: earners for first five betters. They're seventy thirty seven and twelve.
Speaker 1: Remember you can push in first fives. You'd be up
Speaker 1: over fifteen units if you bet the Rangers every first
Speaker 1: five this year on the money line. And we were
Speaker 1: discussing this little yesterday. Are hunches. It's just they just
Speaker 1: out hit people right, in addition to being solid pitching.
Speaker 2: SIS four hundred and fifteen runs offensively, two sixty nine allowed.
Speaker 2: So the only team that has more runs, and I
Speaker 2: don't know how many games each team has played, are
Speaker 2: the Braves. The Braves have more runs in first five.
Speaker 1: And the Braves would be the number two money earners
Speaker 1: for first five you'd be sixty nine, thirty four and fifteen.
Speaker 1: You'd be up almost ten units with them. So it's
Speaker 1: really the Rangers by a long margin, by over five units.
Speaker 1: Then it's the Braves, and then it's the Reds. Like
Speaker 1: the Reds again, followed by the Orioles and the Guardians,
Speaker 1: but once you get past the Orioles, you drop off
Speaker 1: a cliff. So here's the thing. Let's put it this way.
Speaker 1: You know how many teams are profitable first five money
Speaker 1: line this year if you bet them every single game
Speaker 1: five Rangers, Braves, reds Orioles, Guardians, and the Guardians less
Speaker 1: than one hundred bucks, less than one unit in other words, And.
Speaker 2: I think maybe that touches on on a point where
Speaker 2: these first fives, because I love playing the first fives,
Speaker 2: I think you can isolate a starter a lot better.
Speaker 2: You can, you can go a little bit more specific
Speaker 2: with the stats, but you got to keep in mind
Speaker 2: at least now maybe the market I'll get more competitive
Speaker 2: down the line, but you're going to pay a higher price.
Speaker 1: As a rule, the straddle is bigger. The straddle is bigger,
Speaker 1: that's right. You won't find the dime lines here, so
Speaker 1: that matters. And that's amazing. So legitimately there's only five
Speaker 1: out of thirty teams positive and the five that are
Speaker 1: again throw the Guardians outcause is less than one unit.
Speaker 1: The four that are are hugely profitable. So it's like
Speaker 1: those are the four anomalies. Rangers, Braves, Reds, Orioles, the
Speaker 1: way about the Braves. We were talking about this, not
Speaker 1: with you this morning, but with other with other folks,
Speaker 1: and we always say this about the baseball postseason. I
Speaker 1: made all those Braves bets in plus money down the
Speaker 1: stretch last year, seventeen different bets in plus money I
Speaker 1: made on the on the Braves to overcome the Mets
Speaker 1: and win the NL East, because I just thought it
Speaker 1: was mispriced and it came through. And one of the
Speaker 1: big things I said is and now the Mets are
Speaker 1: going to peter out completely because the problem in baseball
Speaker 1: is you play one hundred and sixty two games. If
Speaker 1: you don't win your division, Mann does it suck because
Speaker 1: then you got to play a best of three, so
Speaker 1: it is hugely punitive. And I, you know, we are
Speaker 1: the other stat We always throw out stats by Lopez
Speaker 1: who says, you know, in basketball, best of seven, like
Speaker 1: eighty percent of the favorites get through because there's huge
Speaker 1: top heavy in the NBA first round typically, although not
Speaker 1: so much in the Western Conference these days, but historically
Speaker 1: to get the same percentage of favorites through and hock
Speaker 1: in hockey, you'd have to play a best of fifty one.
Speaker 1: That's how random hockey it in baseball per stats by Lopez.
Speaker 1: You know what, you'd have to play a best of
Speaker 1: to get that percentage of favorites through a best of
Speaker 1: seventy five. So think about that, like it's so random,
Speaker 1: And yet I want to ask you about the Braves.
Speaker 1: Are the Braves so good this year that you don't
Speaker 1: care about any of that? You'd bet them to win
Speaker 1: the whole thing? Because man on a nightly basis, Mark,
Speaker 1: I watched them, and I'm like, they're playing a different
Speaker 1: sport than everybody else.
Speaker 2: It taught the bottom lineup wise. I mean, I don't
Speaker 2: think there's a weakness in there. You look at their
Speaker 2: bullpen by my numbers, they're rated number one. You know.
Speaker 2: The one thing and I love Strider. He's probably my
Speaker 2: favorite pitcher in baseball. But he could be had every
Speaker 2: now and then and maybe a team like the Dodgers
Speaker 2: can have him. And do you think about do you
Speaker 2: think about the Phillies. There's one thing I know about
Speaker 2: the Phillies just kind of off the top of my head.
Speaker 2: Versus power pitchers, they're top three in baseball, like, so
Speaker 2: that makes sense that they were able to get to
Speaker 2: Strider last year. But yeah, I think when you get
Speaker 2: into that, you're talking about the randomness of the postseason.
Speaker 2: I think as good as they are, as dominant as
Speaker 2: they are, maybe it's his best to bet against him,
Speaker 2: because you know what, pretty much the same team last
Speaker 2: year in the baseball they got jumped by the Phillies.
Speaker 2: I think this Dodger team is really good. I mean,
Speaker 2: what have they won like twelve straight? I mean they're.
Speaker 1: Thirteen thirteen and one in August, I think, and they've
Speaker 1: won nine straight. I want to say something like that.
Speaker 1: It's like they're never going to lose again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that Bobby Miller, I could hardly wait. I hope
Speaker 2: he continues to be as good as he's been because
Speaker 2: I love saying Bobby ball game. It's one of my
Speaker 2: favorite phrases. So I hope he think I can continue.
Speaker 1: Worst first five teams in baseball No Surprise Royals followed
Speaker 1: by the A's Royals would have cost you over twenty
Speaker 1: units if you bet them blindly. First five money line
Speaker 1: this year. If you're doing that, you're doing something wrong. Athletics. Second,
Speaker 1: they've cost you sixteen and a half units roughly. This
Speaker 1: Barad's Shark Phillies would be the third worst mark fifteen
Speaker 1: plus units in the red and then the Red Sox
Speaker 1: and Mets rounding out the top five. Do the Philly
Speaker 1: surprise you there?
Speaker 2: Absolutely it does, because if you look at run differential,
Speaker 2: you've got bottom three teams Colorado minus one, forty eight
Speaker 2: oh minus one, forty five Royals minus one oh two,
Speaker 2: and then but the Phillies are actually positive. They're ten
Speaker 2: runs ahead first five. So it might be having something
Speaker 2: to do with pricing.
Speaker 1: It's all about pricing, so think about that. So you
Speaker 1: said the Rockies have the worst run differential right first
Speaker 1: five for five yeap, And I mentioned that there are
Speaker 1: only five teams that are positive in first fives. On
Speaker 1: the money line, the Cubs are sixth, literally eighteen bucks
Speaker 1: in the negative, and the Rockies are seventh, only ninety
Speaker 1: six dollars in the negative. That's despite having a forty two,
Speaker 1: sixty three and fourteen record so bad in the first five.
Speaker 1: But because those forty two probably have massive plus money
Speaker 1: attached to it, that's why they're six. They wouldn't have
Speaker 1: cost you barely anything exactly.
Speaker 2: And you got to think there's so there's also like
Speaker 2: there's a game in Colorado where I think the Angel
Speaker 2: scored twenty one runs in the first maybe twenty three runs.
Speaker 2: So that's a big that's a big chunk of that
Speaker 2: right there.
Speaker 1: It sure is all right. By the way, I didn't
Speaker 1: we didn't do this before. But you know, the most
Speaker 1: profitable first five pitcher is Austin Gomber of the Rockies.
Speaker 2: Oh, don't tell me this, don't tell me this. I'm
Speaker 2: playing against it today. Oh he's boud for regression regret.
Speaker 2: It should actually that's a regression candidate because there's all
Speaker 2: his numbers are terrible.
Speaker 1: This is so funny, goes Gomber, Eovaldi, Kramer, the aforementioned
Speaker 1: Dean Kramer, and then Justin Steele. That was surprise was
Speaker 1: Steel or Eovaldi, but Gomber, Eovaldi, Kramer, and Steele, all
Speaker 1: of whom would have you up over seven units in
Speaker 1: the case of Gomber and Evaldi, almost nine units the positive.
Speaker 1: So there you go.
Speaker 2: There's always one guy. And look, I remember when we
Speaker 2: used to do the Sabermetrics All Stars, and I love
Speaker 2: that so much because it's so great. I remember you
Speaker 2: did Derek Lowe and this is when they would they
Speaker 2: would hold onto these guys. You just bet him every
Speaker 2: time coming out and it was just so profitable. It
Speaker 2: was like easy winners too, Like the guy gets shelled
Speaker 2: every time, they keep throwing him out. And that was
Speaker 2: what I didn't remember. That was under your savorite metrics
Speaker 2: all stars to reglass one here. That's cool.
Speaker 1: So first five inning red the Rockies are thirteen to
Speaker 1: nine and two when Austin Gomber takes the hill and
Speaker 1: that's enough with plus money to have you making tons
Speaker 1: of dough. So you're fading him today. You're fat Rockies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: full game, right though, full game.
Speaker 2: You're going full game on that. Yeah, they're bullpen's trash too,
Speaker 2: So that's good.
Speaker 1: By the way, worst first five pitcher in baseball money
Speaker 1: wise is Zach Grinky four thirteen and five. The Royals
Speaker 1: are in his first five starts.
Speaker 2: Got I'm so depressed about that because, like from a
Speaker 2: from a metrics standpoint, he's it's always a play against him,
Speaker 2: and I've just played against him in the past, and
Speaker 2: the guy's like a wizard. He's like whatey. He's guys
Speaker 2: like you'd be like, oh, the metrics say jump on him,
Speaker 2: and then then he'd like throws he ah man, he
Speaker 2: gets three strikeouts and you know walks three guys and
Speaker 2: that doesn't allow it runs. So yeah, he's frustrating on so.
Speaker 1: Super super frustrating. All right, well, we did this yesterday.
Speaker 1: This is the last one. This is the most proprietary
Speaker 1: of all. It's the first inning numbers because a lot
Speaker 1: of people like to bet first innings. We talked about
Speaker 1: this yesterday. We already talked about the top which is
Speaker 1: I wish we had done this on the podcast side
Speaker 1: the very morning of when Louis Severino was taking on
Speaker 1: the brace. Severarno now up to date after last night's performance,
Speaker 1: the worst first inning pitcher in all of baseball. He's
Speaker 1: gone from five oh four to now a five nineteen.
Speaker 1: Opponent's batting average, oh my god against him. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: on base percentage, pardon me not batting average or maybe no, yeah,
Speaker 1: batting average against his four thirty three. The on base
Speaker 1: against is five nineteen, five nineteen, So again, more than
Speaker 1: one in two batters reach base against several Reno in
Speaker 1: the first Ozuna with a three run shot against him
Speaker 1: last night. No surprise that Adam Wainwright is number two
Speaker 1: at four sixty two on base against and Jack Flaherty
Speaker 1: the Orioles, Jack flair Now four forty six against in
Speaker 1: the first inning. Do you do any first inning betting? Nope,
Speaker 1: we lost.
Speaker 2: I haven't done much, Gil and I want to, but
Speaker 2: I think it needs to be modeled like separately. So
Speaker 2: like that, there's another project, third project. We got on
Speaker 2: the show, our third project.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I have bet. You know, it's
Speaker 1: been a sort of a cottage industry on a numbers game,
Speaker 1: betting first inning yes runs being scored. You see this
Speaker 1: sort of a cottage industry has developed about people promoting, oh,
Speaker 1: you got to bet the no it's not really the
Speaker 1: way to do it. Your instinct ought to be to
Speaker 1: bet the yes runs. And it really isn't quite based
Speaker 1: on this kind of stuff. But it is fascinating to
Speaker 1: look at Severino, Wainwright, Flairty with Severn Reno just being
Speaker 1: I don't remember we've done this for years. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure I remember a five nineteen against in a first inning.
Speaker 1: That is just horrific. The best in the first inning.
Speaker 1: These won't be surprising. Franbervaldez one ninety against, Hey, sus
Speaker 1: Losarto one ninety three against, on base Sonny Gray two
Speaker 1: hundred on base percentage against followed by Zach Wheeler, Zach Gafflin,
Speaker 1: Tony Gonsolin, Aaron Nola, and Luis Castillo. No surprises there,
Speaker 1: So what's what's what's the biggest.
Speaker 2: Staro's up there? Like Lozardo is an interesting guy, you know, Gosh,
Speaker 2: I bet him a bunch of times, and I would
Speaker 2: say mixed results would be would be best on the
Speaker 2: on this guy, it's so like, it's interesting that he's
Speaker 2: up there.
Speaker 1: What's the single biggest headline in all of this? Was
Speaker 1: it that? Was it a first five thing?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think so. I think I think so, Gil
Speaker 2: I would I would say that I would be with
Speaker 2: you on that.
Speaker 1: Only four teams in the positive on first five. That's
Speaker 1: that's remarkable, well five if you include.
Speaker 2: The okay, So I I just want to like, let
Speaker 2: me just kind of break this down a little bit.
Speaker 2: For for me personally, I love making the first five bet.
Speaker 2: I really do, because you get a result quick, you
Speaker 2: can really isolate on starting pitching and other things as
Speaker 2: well from a stat standpoint. But like you know, even
Speaker 2: with that in the back of my mind, I still
Speaker 2: make the bet.
Speaker 1: So it still make a bet.
Speaker 2: I still make bad and I think this is one
Speaker 2: cool thing about like where sports betting is kind of evolve,
Speaker 2: and yeah, yeah, the market's tougher. I mean, everybody's got
Speaker 2: access to the same stuff now, and there's there's a
Speaker 2: lot of gooder you get. Your network puts out a
Speaker 2: lot of good information and people listen, and people are
Speaker 2: starting to become better handicappers. So that makes it more
Speaker 2: difficult to handicap. But the markets should get more competitive
Speaker 2: as things go on. So I'm excited to see, like
Speaker 2: first five inning markets, maybe we can get a little
Speaker 2: bit better juice one in a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: What does that tell us? Though, I'm curious because we've
Speaker 1: done this for many years. I don't ever remember at
Speaker 1: the quarter pole right in our Q three derivatives poll
Speaker 1: that literally only five teams are profitable first five and
Speaker 1: again the Guardian's less than a unit profitable. So it's
Speaker 1: really four teams, four out of thirty Rangers, Braves, Reds,
Speaker 1: and Orioles. What does that say? What? What is the
Speaker 1: message in that that starting pitching is basically meh? League wide? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: of course every team is going to have its ace,
Speaker 1: but it's really not deep, deep enough to sustain good
Speaker 1: five inning performance or that the offense of those teams
Speaker 1: I'm talking Rangers, Braves, and Orioles specifically, is so good
Speaker 1: and so stacked that their leaps and bounds better than
Speaker 1: any other offense. And because of that, and because you're
Speaker 1: starting at the top of the lineup, obviously you're getting
Speaker 1: the most bang for your buck in that short amount
Speaker 1: of time, right, So you're gonna get you know, max
Speaker 1: top of worder there in the shorter time spell timeframe
Speaker 1: of five innings. Is that I mean, is that the
Speaker 1: message that the offense is just so condensed in those
Speaker 1: three teams.
Speaker 2: Oh, you made some good points, and I think that
Speaker 2: like something that for me I think about all the
Speaker 2: time is how these teams prep for the starting pitchers
Speaker 2: and and you mentioned that the teams, you know, maybe
Speaker 2: there's just really good preparation and they're they know how
Speaker 2: to get to the guy early. And so I think
Speaker 2: for me, like what would be fascinating to see is
Speaker 2: like how other teams perform against teams like the Rays,
Speaker 2: teams like the Giants who kind of mix things up
Speaker 2: and you see, like with the with the starters nowadays,
Speaker 2: like Okay, well we're gonna bulk this guy. But then
Speaker 2: they end up not bulking him and stuff, so they're
Speaker 2: they're there, And I think I thought they should do
Speaker 2: this for years, keeping teams on their toes about as
Speaker 2: far as preparation because with the technology right now, you know,
Speaker 2: they have the virtual reality thing that you can simulate
Speaker 2: a pitcher and so like, who's to say that these
Speaker 2: guys aren't stimulating the picture. But if they don't know
Speaker 2: who the picture is, who they gonna simulate gil. So
Speaker 2: I think there's there's a lot of interesting stuff from
Speaker 2: a analytics standpoint, there it is.
Speaker 1: And also you bring up the Giants. So the Giants
Speaker 1: come up first five, they're thirteenth, right, so they're middling.
Speaker 1: So they would have cost you four unit's all year.
Speaker 1: Like if you bet them first five every single game
Speaker 1: this year, you'd be down for units. So again, nothing special,
Speaker 1: but I mean keep in mind what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: The Royal would cost you twenty, The A's would have
Speaker 1: cost you sixteen and a half. The Phillies would have
Speaker 1: cost you fifteen, The Red Sox would have cost you
Speaker 1: almost fifteen, The Mets would have cost you thirteen and
Speaker 1: a half. On and on, right, playoff teams, potential playoff
Speaker 1: teams like the Twins and the Brewers and the Mariners
Speaker 1: ten and above Padres right there too, Diamondbacks almost ten
Speaker 1: units or at least over nine. So if you're the
Speaker 1: Giants and you're always rolling out like every so every
Speaker 1: so many games, it's just a bullpen day, right, they're
Speaker 1: just mixing and matching, like Ryan Walker. Here, you start,
Speaker 1: you'll pitch two innings, we'll go to our next picture.
Speaker 1: What it also tells me is the that that approach
Speaker 1: ain't that bad and that more teams ought to be
Speaker 1: considering it.
Speaker 2: Yes, you know when you see this happening too, and
Speaker 2: it makes it from a headcappy standpoint, it's a nightmare.
Speaker 2: It's a night yeah, it is, because so for years,
Speaker 2: you know, we bought, we've we've boxed the starter or
Speaker 2: listed the starter right, and so now I'm just I'll
Speaker 2: just get into kind of my life. If I see
Speaker 2: somebody that's going to bolt for the Giants, I've got
Speaker 2: to like, I got to I'll handicap that. But in parentheses,
Speaker 2: I got to put bulk right. And so like it's it,
Speaker 2: it becomes challenging. And then the other thing is too,
Speaker 2: this is interesting, Gil. I just want to touch on
Speaker 2: this because it's it's been a challenge for me. You
Speaker 2: look at a guy like Paveta, right, so he he's
Speaker 2: been getting like like openers, and so you look at
Speaker 2: us like stats as a starter, like, okay, you can
Speaker 2: use those, and there's there's there's some relevance there, but
Speaker 2: there's also relevance to when he comes in as a
Speaker 2: bulk guy. So you now, if you if all your
Speaker 2: systems are like, well, how does he do as a starter?
Speaker 2: You got to be like, okay, I got to change
Speaker 2: this because I'm going to put the bulk stuff in too.
Speaker 2: So from a technical standpoint, from a handicapping standpoint, it
Speaker 2: it presents another hurdle to go over.
Speaker 1: I guess mar G I love it. I always think
Speaker 1: about the old well first of all, Deon Sanders when
Speaker 1: he played football in baseball he used to say he
Speaker 1: used to riffing off the old anti drug commercial in
Speaker 1: the eighties where it was like, oh, here's my brain,
Speaker 1: here's my brain on crack. And Deon Sanders, I brought
Speaker 1: this up many times, used to say, you know, football
Speaker 1: was baseball was his brain and football was his brain
Speaker 1: on crack. And when we get to do the megapods,
Speaker 1: it's football season. We all love football. It's going to
Speaker 1: be you know, we're going to be on hamsters on
Speaker 1: a wheel week after week doing football. It's the greatest
Speaker 1: thing in the world. But I so appreciate doing these
Speaker 1: pods with you because this really is my brain as
Speaker 1: opposed to my brain on crack, and I love nerding
Speaker 1: out on these things. And baseball handicapping still to me
Speaker 1: is some of the most fascinating stuff in the world
Speaker 1: because it really is problem solving, right. It's trying to
Speaker 1: fix a puzzle, and there's so many little nuances to it.
Speaker 1: We'll never get to perfection, but we always strive to
Speaker 1: get as close to it as we can, and it's
Speaker 1: what makes it so fascinating. So I've just always appreciated man,
Speaker 1: all these years. If I haven't told you in person,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you on the air here. I've so appreciated
Speaker 1: all of these shows that we've done together, because, like
Speaker 1: you said, the more we talk, the more than it
Speaker 1: triggers thoughts, and the more that we try to innovate
Speaker 1: or or figure out something which is all designed to
Speaker 1: make us make money to whatever extent.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's a beautiful thing. And even when you come
Speaker 2: off of You got to keep that in mind because
Speaker 2: you're gonna have days where you'll go in three or
Speaker 2: four or worse, and you got to keep that in
Speaker 2: mind that you have to really enjoy and love to
Speaker 2: do this. And it's so fun to work with you
Speaker 2: and to be on with you, and I just I
Speaker 2: can't I can't tell you how much I love you,
Speaker 2: and I love the voice of sports betting, and just
Speaker 2: as a listeners as in the off season, I'll listen
Speaker 2: to the guests and talk. I am just so gosh,
Speaker 2: I'm humbled to be on with some of the guests
Speaker 2: that you have. For you to consider me as a guest,
Speaker 2: because you've got some great guests that come on all year.
Speaker 2: Paul Carr is awesome with soccer. He does such a
Speaker 2: great job with that. That's the first guy that comes
Speaker 2: to my mind. But the list can go on. And uh,
Speaker 2: I love listening to your show and I love being on.
Speaker 2: It's fun.
Speaker 1: Well, you're the og of them all, Mark, I appreciate it, man,
Speaker 1: Mark Borchard, tell tell everybody by the way we buried
Speaker 1: the headline. I always say Base Winner. People know you
Speaker 1: from this podcast at Base Winter Baswinter dot com. You
Speaker 1: still do a Base Winter podcast, but I bear with
Speaker 1: the headline. You do something every day now except for
Speaker 1: today Wednesday, which is why we were able to record this.
Speaker 1: Tell us what that is?
Speaker 2: Yeah, every every week the MLB Show. It's a YouTube
Speaker 2: show and at lasts about an hour we get we
Speaker 2: go deep diving into the card and I think one
Speaker 2: of the things I enjoy about that is I can
Speaker 2: interact with with people who follow me and you can say, well, Base,
Speaker 2: when you set the chart out and you got this
Speaker 2: guy rated this, what's your take on the why why
Speaker 2: isn't in a play? And then I can go back
Speaker 2: down into the deeper numbers behind that and tell him
Speaker 2: why I didn't consider it a play. It's really cool.
Speaker 2: It's a it's a it's a great it's a great show.
Speaker 2: It's fun for me.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: We actually have a lot of fun on it too,
Speaker 2: so that that's that's a bonus as well.
Speaker 1: What's the quickest way to find it? How do what
Speaker 1: do they do?
Speaker 2: MLB Show? Bet us? Just do a search on YouTube
Speaker 2: and you'll find me.
Speaker 1: And you do it with Jason Wingarden as well or
Speaker 1: old buddy.
Speaker 2: Yeah Jace Jason on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we're together. And
Speaker 2: then and then and Kyle uh prevdances as the host.
Speaker 2: He does a great job, fun guy. And then Corby
Speaker 2: Craig is one of the other analysts too, and and
Speaker 2: and he does a lot of good stuff. He does
Speaker 2: a lot of good stuff with stat Cast. So it's cool.
Speaker 2: And yeah, we have we have a fun time. And
Speaker 2: and you guys want to check us out and ask
Speaker 2: me questions. Uh feel free. I love I love the question.
Speaker 2: It's my favorite part of the show.
Speaker 1: Gil love it, Mark Borch and everybody. Thank you, Mark, appreciate,
Speaker 1: love you man, Thank you, Thank you Gil. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: Our next podcast is our US Open preview next week
Speaker 1: right after the draw. Thanks for listening. Good luck with Paul,
Speaker 1: your buck