Speaker 1: Check it down, then no down. Then Wednesday morning, June
Speaker 1: twenty eighth, twenty twenty three, it is the Beating the
Speaker 1: Book podcast mlb Q two derivative show all from a
Speaker 1: betting perspective. It's Gil Alexander. This is the longest running
Speaker 1: thing that I believe we have done on this podcast
Speaker 1: and on the Betting Dork podcast before that. The Megapod
Speaker 1: might have something to say about that. But if it's
Speaker 1: not the Megapod, it is this where Mark Borchard base
Speaker 1: Winner joins me to do quarterly derivatives betting outlooks in
Speaker 1: Major League Baseball. Mark joins us now from an undisclosed
Speaker 1: location somewhere in the Desert base Winter podcast basewinter dot
Speaker 1: com at base Winter on Twitter. How you doing, Mark,
Speaker 1: I'm doing good.
Speaker 2: And I think that I will hold to this that
Speaker 2: I was your first guest on your podcast. You were,
Speaker 2: and it's it, and it's an honor, it really is.
Speaker 2: You've done so good and I call you the voice
Speaker 2: of sports betting, and I know sometimes I say it
Speaker 2: tongue in cheek, but I really mean it because I
Speaker 2: think you are the voice of sports betting and you've
Speaker 2: done such a good job and not just analyzing games
Speaker 2: on a daily basis and doing a daily show, but
Speaker 2: being an ambassador for sports betting since and it's gone
Speaker 2: a long way since we started.
Speaker 3: I mean, it makes you feel a little bit old
Speaker 3: in a way.
Speaker 1: But dude, this is Yeah. We met in a forum
Speaker 1: and we were scolded for contacting outside of the forum
Speaker 1: or something like that. But I knew. I knew immediately.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, this is my kind of guy
Speaker 1: nerd fest in baseball. I remember it was.
Speaker 2: Great, and I was great, and I'll never forget the
Speaker 2: metrics that we made up watching spring training Baseball Classic.
Speaker 1: Yes we are, we are. We're complete dorks. We would
Speaker 1: go to spring training together in Arizona. We would make
Speaker 1: up metrics in the stands because something's wrong with us.
Speaker 1: Do you remember the greatest metric we made up? Though?
Speaker 1: We should probably bring this up.
Speaker 2: Oh, I think it was the long leash, Yes, cool
Speaker 2: M L cool am. And I really think that I
Speaker 2: can make that into a metric now because I think
Speaker 2: about the other day Gil.
Speaker 1: It had to do with managers and their quick or
Speaker 1: slow hooks on pitchers. So it was long leash cool manager. Right.
Speaker 1: We did an LL cool M or something like that
Speaker 1: really hasn't caught on quite yet, but.
Speaker 2: We got to work up well, I I haven't developed
Speaker 2: it yet, but it actually makes sense because some of
Speaker 2: these guys, you know, the way they balance a bullpen,
Speaker 2: and it really makes a difference towards it towards a
Speaker 2: later part of those games. But that that's in development
Speaker 2: along with the G six model that I'm going to
Speaker 2: make for you with six inputs.
Speaker 1: Oh nice, I like it. Mark All was struggling with
Speaker 1: putting more Giants magic into his model. One day he
Speaker 1: will get it perfected. As the Giants win their tenth
Speaker 1: straight road game last night. Giants two and a half
Speaker 1: out of the NL West. For those who are unfamiliar
Speaker 1: with what we do here, so this is essentially so
Speaker 1: we're essentially at the halfway point of the Major League
Speaker 1: based A couple teams have gotten to the halfway point.
Speaker 1: The other twenty eight are about to. They're just a
Speaker 1: game or two shy. And so what we do every
Speaker 1: quarter roughly forty eighty one, one hundred and twenty games,
Speaker 1: is we go back and we look at a bunch
Speaker 1: of betting stats, both from a you know, very widely
Speaker 1: available money line and run line perspective on teams starting pitchers,
Speaker 1: who would have made you the most money, who would
Speaker 1: have cost you the most. We talk about umpires, who
Speaker 1: are the most reliable over umpires, the most reliable under umpires.
Speaker 1: Mark is invaluable to that because he actually has historical
Speaker 1: umpire data to corroborate if this is just a uh,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of flash in the pan thing for
Speaker 1: half a season, or if this is actually consistent with
Speaker 1: how these umpires have been. And then it gets a
Speaker 1: little more proprietary. We do first five inning stats, and
Speaker 1: we do first inning stats for pitchers, and the whole
Speaker 1: exercise is really designed to come up with, Okay, is
Speaker 1: this just something that we've you know, just happened for
Speaker 1: half a season and it's more narrative and fun to
Speaker 1: talk about, or is it legit predictive of what's to come?
Speaker 1: And so will it help us, you know, it will
Speaker 1: help inform baseball bets, both day to day and long
Speaker 1: term into the future. And we've we've had a ball
Speaker 1: doing this for so many years. And Mark, let's start
Speaker 1: at the very top. Which is the biggest money line
Speaker 1: winners in terms of baseball clubs for betters this season?
Speaker 1: And who do you have per your numbers? I will
Speaker 1: rely on Covers for these Covers dot Com. Who do
Speaker 1: you have as your top three baseball teams? That again
Speaker 1: the Bizarro exercise. Let's say you bet on this team
Speaker 1: every single game thus far this season when they were
Speaker 1: a favorite. Let's say you bet on them every single
Speaker 1: game when they were an underdog. So it is bizarro.
Speaker 1: No one actually does this this way, but if you did,
Speaker 1: this would be the biggest grossers for betters.
Speaker 2: Who do you have, Mark, I've got Baltimore, Arizona and
Speaker 2: Myami in that order.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Covers has Arizona now today just a tick
Speaker 1: above Baltimore. Both would have earned you more than fourteen units.
Speaker 1: Again bizarro exercise, betting them every single day, whether they're
Speaker 1: a favorite or an underdog. They have Cincinnati third and
Speaker 1: Miami fourth. By the way, the Giants would be fifth.
Speaker 1: Those are the five teams that would have earned you
Speaker 1: double digit units this season. And that's you and I
Speaker 1: talked about this when we did this on a numbers
Speaker 1: game yesterday on Visen. Usually we have a surprise. These
Speaker 1: are like textbook five overachieving teams, right, you.
Speaker 2: Was saying, the only one that to me is kind
Speaker 2: of in that mix in the top ten, and I
Speaker 2: think I have them like sixth or seventh or the
Speaker 2: Braves because you're just laying so much sauce with that team,
Speaker 2: you would think that that would get you, but they've
Speaker 2: just been so good.
Speaker 3: That team is so some gil Wow that the.
Speaker 2: Hitting and the releae pitching's good, but the lineup is
Speaker 2: amazing and.
Speaker 1: A Kunya at the top is just amazing. But yes,
Speaker 1: to Mark's point, texas another overachiever. Overachiever based on what
Speaker 1: their pre flop consensus season win total was at six.
Speaker 1: But yes, then it is Atlanta and Tampa Bay. And
Speaker 1: think about what Mark just said, which is those teams
Speaker 1: are laying wood more often than not. But they're so
Speaker 1: good or have been so good that even if you
Speaker 1: bet them, you know, just brain dead wise every single game,
Speaker 1: you would still be, you know, in the money with
Speaker 1: both of those teams. Not as sexy as the other
Speaker 1: ones we mentioned, but still in the money. And really,
Speaker 1: when it gets down to it, it's not like half
Speaker 1: the teams put you in the money. It's a little
Speaker 1: less than half that would actually have you if you
Speaker 1: blindly bet them every day. At the bottom, it's sort
Speaker 1: of the opposite of we just what we just talked
Speaker 1: about with Atlanta and Tampa Bay, Kansas City and Oakland
Speaker 1: have been so bad that even though they're only you know, dogs,
Speaker 1: each and every single night, seemingly and really not even
Speaker 1: seemingly they are, they're the biggest hemorrhagers for better. So
Speaker 1: if you had bet Kansas City or Oakland every single
Speaker 1: game this year on the money line, and by the way,
Speaker 1: if you're doing that, you're not doing this. Let me
Speaker 1: just point that out, you're not doing it right. But
Speaker 1: Kansas City would have you down almost twenty almost twenty
Speaker 1: four and a half units. In Oakland would be down
Speaker 1: twenty two units. Goodness, man, Mets, Cardinals, Padres after that,
Speaker 1: those come into the sort of way underachieving based on
Speaker 1: expectation similar to what you have.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I've got Cardinals' worst, Royals, A's and Mets
Speaker 2: in that order, and the Cardinals are just really I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm missed with the Cardinals. I thought that they'd be
Speaker 2: right at the top. And I think that even like
Speaker 2: if you were to come to me and say, if
Speaker 2: you look at their their x FIP minus a year
Speaker 2: to date, it's ninety nine which I would have taken
Speaker 2: that like as you know, collectively as a team, I'd
Speaker 2: have been like, yeah, okay, well they're average pitching, but
Speaker 2: they can really bash and they haven't been able to
Speaker 2: put the numbers up that I projected, although there's seven
Speaker 2: percent better than average. So what's interesting is they're fielding.
Speaker 2: They've they've twenty six runs that they have not dave,
Speaker 2: so they've they've allowed extra runs, you know, defensive run saved,
Speaker 2: and you would consider them a good defensive team. But
Speaker 2: that Cardinals team just perplexes me. Gil it always for
Speaker 2: the last three years I was I was bearished on
Speaker 2: them when they were good. Now I'm ballish on them
Speaker 2: when they're bad. That's not a good thing here.
Speaker 1: And here's the question. So of the ones that we
Speaker 1: mentioned on the top and we once mentioned on the bottom,
Speaker 1: which I mean, how many of those are do you
Speaker 1: think our outliers and won't be sustainable? Because to me,
Speaker 1: like I really feel like Arizona, Baltimore, Cincinnati and Miami
Speaker 1: and San Francisco and Texas are actually good baseball teams.
Speaker 1: But which which of the good do you think? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't see it continuing. Which of the bad on
Speaker 1: the other hand, because you've said it with Oakland, you
Speaker 1: actually think they'll be better.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think Oakland will be better.
Speaker 2: I think Miami, you know, it's it's an interesting team
Speaker 2: because you look at them profit wise straight up and
Speaker 2: they're you know, I have a twelve point six units,
Speaker 2: but if you look at them versus the run line,
Speaker 2: they're they're not as good. So that means that, in fact,
Speaker 2: I think I'm not showing a negative number for them,
Speaker 2: Gill on the run line, So that means that they're
Speaker 2: they're getting a lot of luck in the.
Speaker 3: One run games.
Speaker 2: And so I think that, you know, I know Jason
Speaker 2: was really down on Miami earlier, and my numbers for
Speaker 2: their offense were low on them too, So I think
Speaker 2: that that's the team maybe that's going to slide, is
Speaker 2: that Miami team Gill.
Speaker 1: Okay, and Oakland would be the answer to the bottom
Speaker 1: where you'd be like, yeah, they'll be better. Like you're
Speaker 1: adjusted season, your adjusted season win total is higher than
Speaker 1: their current adjusted season win total.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've got them. Let's see, let's see I can
Speaker 3: pull that, look at that real fast.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they were yesterday forty eight point five wins over
Speaker 2: under at Caesars. So that's their season win total, and
Speaker 2: I've got them at fifty four point four.
Speaker 1: So yeah, all right, so don't yeah, yeah, don't necessarily
Speaker 1: fade them as rampantly as you might think. By the way,
Speaker 1: if we broke down the money line numbers into home roads,
Speaker 1: Arizona is actually the number one away team on the
Speaker 1: money line. If you had bet them every single game
Speaker 1: favorite or dog on the road, they'd have you up
Speaker 1: almost twelve units. Baltimore also would be number two on
Speaker 1: the road. They'd have you up over ten units. So
Speaker 1: most of the units that the number one and two
Speaker 1: overall money line teams have gotten you have been as
Speaker 1: road teams. Cincinnati also third best on the road, so
Speaker 1: it's consistent. So who is the best at home? It's
Speaker 1: actually Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay at home, they'd have you
Speaker 1: up over ten units, almost ten and a half. They're
Speaker 1: actually a losing proposition if you had bet them every
Speaker 1: single game on the road, and as far as the
Speaker 1: oh By the way, one other weird outlier, the biggest
Speaker 1: difference between a home and road split in terms of
Speaker 1: money line Washington, the Nationals would have you down almost
Speaker 1: nine units betting them blindly at home and up almost
Speaker 1: eleven units on the road.
Speaker 3: That's interesting, That is interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I've only played the Nationals once this year.
Speaker 3: That was two nights ago and they lost.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say I haven't played them barely at all,
Speaker 1: if at all, in terms of that. Yeah, go ahead,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: It's hard to get a I mean to get a
Speaker 2: good position on them, and that the starting pitching is
Speaker 2: is worst in baseball for me, and so it starts there,
Speaker 2: and so that's why I haven't really been able to
Speaker 2: back them at all this year.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Mets are the worst on the road, by the way.
Speaker 1: They're the third worst overall the money line, but they're
Speaker 1: the worst on the road. Most of their loss is
Speaker 1: away from city Field Oakland. Oh no, pardon me, Kansas
Speaker 1: City by far the worst team at home. Almost eighteen
Speaker 1: of their twenty five units have been lost as a
Speaker 1: home team. By the way run line best run line team. Now,
Speaker 1: this is, of course, as a favorite, you're a one
Speaker 1: and a half run favorite. As a dog, you're a
Speaker 1: plus one and a half run proposition. So when you're winning,
Speaker 1: your winning big. When you're losing, sometimes if you can
Speaker 1: keep it within you know to a one score game,
Speaker 1: you become the best run line team in all of baseball,
Speaker 1: or you're just crushing teams on a nightly basis. The
Speaker 1: number one run line team a de facto power ranking,
Speaker 1: if you will, mark, who do you have as the
Speaker 1: number one run line team?
Speaker 3: Are you talking about at home? Are you talking about overall?
Speaker 1: We're not gonna do splits on run line? Just overall?
Speaker 3: Okay, overall run line team. I have Baltimore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Baltimore just just nipping Cincinnati. Both Baltimore and Cincinnati
Speaker 1: the best run line teams in baseball according to covers
Speaker 1: over eighteen units strong, and Arizona would be third. So
Speaker 1: it's really the usual. Oh no, pardon me, Texas would
Speaker 1: actually be third. Arizona would be fourth in terms of
Speaker 1: covers numbers.
Speaker 3: I'm sure this to know where the Yankees fall in
Speaker 3: for you on.
Speaker 1: That, the Yankees would be excellent. Question In terms of
Speaker 1: the run line, they're actually the seventh best in.
Speaker 3: That wild I'm looking at the thing, going, well, Yankees
Speaker 3: are there, So that's a weird one.
Speaker 1: So I guess when they win, they crush or they
Speaker 1: lose a lot of I mean, I don't I can't
Speaker 1: remember what their one run record is off hand, but
Speaker 1: they you'd be up six point five units on the
Speaker 1: Yankees betting them on the run line. By the way,
Speaker 1: the Nationals would be eighth on the run line at
Speaker 1: five point five units to the positive. So there is
Speaker 1: a few surprises in that regard.
Speaker 3: And by the way, that Yankee's surprising to me.
Speaker 1: The worst on the run line. Again, the Royals, you'd
Speaker 1: be down twenty nine units betting them, so like when
Speaker 1: they lose, they don't even keep it close. And again,
Speaker 1: if you're betting the Royals on the run line every
Speaker 1: single day, you're doing this all wrong. But anyway, that's
Speaker 1: that's just an interesting sort of overview of the of
Speaker 1: that in terms of starting pitchers. Now this has to
Speaker 1: do with, you know, when these guys take the hill,
Speaker 1: what is their team's ultimate win loss record? Now, again,
Speaker 1: is this sustainable? Is this predictive in anyway? You be
Speaker 1: the judge. I'll get Mark's opinions. Dean Kramer of the Orioles,
Speaker 1: the Oriols are eleven and five when he takes the
Speaker 1: hill this year, Boyd of the Tigers, the Tigers are
Speaker 1: nine and six when he takes the hill. Henry of Arizona,
Speaker 1: Tommy Henry, they're nine and two are the Diamondbacks when
Speaker 1: he takes the hill. Those are the three most profitable
Speaker 1: pitchers in all of baseball. Like Spencer Strider, who I
Speaker 1: think should be the NLSI Young Award winner at this point.
Speaker 1: Others would disagree. By contrast, he's sixth, right, even though
Speaker 1: the Braves are fourteen and two when he takes the hill.
Speaker 1: But in terms of money, because remember a lot of
Speaker 1: these guys that I just mentioned, Kramer, Boyd, and Henry,
Speaker 1: when their teams Baltimore, Detroit and Arizona are playing, they're
Speaker 1: getting plus money. So from a money perspective, they're one,
Speaker 1: two three. Are any of those three guys sustainable on
Speaker 1: this do you thing?
Speaker 3: I don't think so.
Speaker 2: I mean, I said yesterday, you know Kramer was good
Speaker 2: on Seinfeld, but I don't really see him as a
Speaker 2: as a high level, a high level major league pitcher,
Speaker 2: neither Henry. I think that, you know, the Diamondbacks are
Speaker 2: going to have to get an extra pitcher. I think
Speaker 2: to be competitive in the playoffs. I don't think they
Speaker 2: can just do it with Gallon and yeah, Kelly.
Speaker 1: Bottom line, by the way, the bottom of that starting pitcher.
Speaker 1: Money wise, there's one hundred and eighty four starting pitchers
Speaker 1: that qualified. No surprise, Jordan Lyles of the Royals. The
Speaker 1: Royals just won their first game with him as a starter,
Speaker 1: so they're now one in fifteen. He'd have cost you
Speaker 1: thirteen units, almost thirteen units if you had bet Jordan
Speaker 1: Lyles games for the Royals blindly. And again, God help
Speaker 1: you if you are. Schmidt of the Yankees is second
Speaker 1: worst nine units to the in the red if you
Speaker 1: had bet him blindly, because the Yankees are four and
Speaker 1: twelve with him on the hill. And then some familiar
Speaker 1: names Zach Grink, Jamison tye On of the Cubs, and
Speaker 1: Jordan Montgomery three four five by the way, Blake Snell
Speaker 1: seventh of the Padres, and he's pitching great. They're also
Speaker 1: on the worst list. Blake Snell is the most unsustainable
Speaker 1: of that. In other words, he's going to completely reverse.
Speaker 2: You would say, I think, so, you know, I like
Speaker 2: Montgomery and tie On, I having them better than an
Speaker 2: average pitcher. So I think that, you know, there might
Speaker 2: be some some one run stuff in there too for Montgomery,
Speaker 2: and but I think that that ty On and Montgomery
Speaker 2: are better than average major league pittures.
Speaker 3: Gil.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's get to the umpires because this is this
Speaker 1: is great to have you on with this. So again
Speaker 1: I'm getting these from covers dot com. Mark has his
Speaker 1: own proprietary numbers. So these are umpires. And again you
Speaker 1: can see umpire assignments at a site like stat fox.
Speaker 1: What was the Twitter handle that you recommend for umpire listings.
Speaker 3: It's at umpire crew.
Speaker 1: At umpire crewe. Umpire crew is the Twitter handle they
Speaker 1: have umpire assignments. And as you were saying, you can
Speaker 1: find those assignments there or you figure out just who's
Speaker 1: who's the homeplate umpire one night and then you just
Speaker 1: do the rotation of the crew.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's for for any game that's like second, third,
Speaker 2: or for any game other than the first game of
Speaker 2: the series, you just the first base umpire. Then the
Speaker 2: next night that you know, let's say tonight, the first
Speaker 2: base umpire, and then tomorrow he'll be the home plate umpire,
Speaker 2: So it rotates. I guess that would be counter No,
Speaker 2: that'd be clockwise if you looked at the diamond, So
Speaker 2: first base goes to home plate next day.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the most reliable over umpires thus far in
Speaker 1: Major League Baseball this season. Nate Tomlinson eight of the
Speaker 1: nine games least, according to covers, eight of the nine
Speaker 1: game that he's been behind home plate have gone over.
Speaker 1: Mike Esterbrook ten of thirteen. I believe it says here,
Speaker 1: Jordan Baker eight of eleven, Alfonso Marquez nine of twelve
Speaker 1: to the over, and Chad Witson seven of twelve to
Speaker 1: the over. Those are the most reliable over umpires in
Speaker 1: all the baseball thus far this year. So in other words,
Speaker 1: maybe their strike zone is the size of a thimble
Speaker 1: and the guys are just able to hack away or
Speaker 1: take their base. Do any of those names jibe with
Speaker 1: your historical numbers as being reliably over umpires.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Marquez has been consistently over And kind of the
Speaker 2: methodology on this is I took the last four years,
Speaker 2: so from six twenty six of twenty nineteen till now,
Speaker 2: and Marquez has like one hundred and twelve games, and
Speaker 2: then I used a walk percentage and a strikeout percentage
Speaker 2: to come up with like a projected er and basically,
Speaker 2: long story short is, in games that he umpires, I
Speaker 2: have my total project actual eight percent greater than it
Speaker 2: would would be uh normally so and it makes a difference. Gal,
Speaker 2: I mean, if you're looking at a projected total of
Speaker 2: nine and it's eight percent greater than it should be,
Speaker 2: and I'm going to challenge my mas skills here, it'd
Speaker 2: be it'd zero point seventy two runs greater. So that
Speaker 2: that could make the difference between making an overplayer not
Speaker 2: making an overplay one percent.
Speaker 1: It could absolutely And so again, just be cognizant of
Speaker 1: that that if you, you know, let's say you have a
Speaker 1: lean on a game to the over to the under,
Speaker 1: but then you see the home plade umpire is going
Speaker 1: to be someone who is, you know, consistently the opposite
Speaker 1: of what your handicap is. Maybe maybe you don't switch
Speaker 1: your bet. Maybe at least it takes you off the bet,
Speaker 1: gives you enough enough pause for that. By the way,
Speaker 1: the opposite is.
Speaker 2: Such a good point on I just wanted to I
Speaker 2: just wanted to touch on that because I just have
Speaker 2: a practical example of what happened to me on Monday nights.
Speaker 2: So it's the first game of the series, in the
Speaker 2: White Sox Angels game, and my model projected over pretty sizably,
Speaker 2: but by about a run, so so I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 2: gonna play. I know, I don't know who the umpires,
Speaker 2: but I'm gonna play the over. Well, the umpire turned
Speaker 2: out to be Bill Miller. Bill Miller is my biggest
Speaker 2: under umpire and the game went under and like, if
Speaker 2: you watch the game, like you know why Bill Miller
Speaker 2: is an under umpire because he was just calling balls
Speaker 2: outside of the strike zone. So it could bite you
Speaker 2: with little but if you don't do it. And it
Speaker 2: did bite me in the butt too. So I usually
Speaker 2: don't make a play on the first game of the
Speaker 2: series only because I don't know who the umpire is,
Speaker 2: but I couldn't resist on that one. It looked too
Speaker 2: good for me from a modeling sandpoint, but I did
Speaker 2: get burned on it.
Speaker 1: Gil Well, that's a that's a great segue into who
Speaker 1: have been the most reliable under umpires when they've called
Speaker 1: balls and strikes this year? And the answers to that
Speaker 1: question Percovers dot Com, Corey Blazer, Phil Cuzy, Trip Gibson,
Speaker 1: the third, don't want to leave out that he's the third.
Speaker 1: Bruce Dreckman, Bill Miller, and Brian Knight c your Brian
Speaker 1: McKnight annual joke here if you would mark what was
Speaker 1: your joke yesterday?
Speaker 2: Oh no, we have to If we do that, then
Speaker 2: I have to start these ratings back at one.
Speaker 1: Oh there you go. There it is bark borge with everybody.
Speaker 1: It's Brian McKnight joke. So but you just mentioned, uh,
Speaker 1: you just mentioned Bill Miller. There he is. He's been
Speaker 1: super reliable as in under rump this year. And you
Speaker 1: have him historically as a under rump.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, he's he's historically the base winner number one
Speaker 2: under umpire one hundred and eighteen games over the last
Speaker 2: four years, so decent sample size. And then you mentioned
Speaker 2: a couple of them that are kind of in the
Speaker 2: in my top ten unders cause he's number twouzy.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And then Trip Gibson. And it's funny you said the third.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know what's wrong with me gil
Speaker 2: on my modeling, I don't have the third, and I
Speaker 2: just have Trip Gibson. I mean, gosh, I'm slipping in
Speaker 2: my old age here. But yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, he's uh,
Speaker 2: he's in the top I guess twelve.
Speaker 3: So yeah, three names there that are under that are consistently.
Speaker 1: Undergoing and so that's you know, we're doing a Q
Speaker 1: two derivative show right now, but that's to have those
Speaker 1: historical numbers as key here because what it shows you
Speaker 1: is that it really is when it comes to Miller
Speaker 1: and when it come to Cuzzy, this is no aberration.
Speaker 1: So it's the opposite of what I talked about with
Speaker 1: the reliably overms historically like Marquez, Alfonso Marquez, who you mentioned,
Speaker 1: which is like apparently their strike zone Miller's and Cuzzies
Speaker 1: is massive, one would think, just generally speaking, and so
Speaker 1: the pitcher gets the benefit of the doubt or maybe
Speaker 1: like as we've seen in baseball this year, the umpiring
Speaker 1: has just deteriorated. Like each and every year, it seems
Speaker 1: like the homeplate umpire calling balls and strikes generally in
Speaker 1: baseball has just gotten worse and worse. We were talking
Speaker 1: yesterday about the Diamondbacks Giants game on Saturday, was just
Speaker 1: a joke, like Merrill Kelly didn't have to be close
Speaker 1: to the strike zone. It was a strike. Meanwhile, Sean
Speaker 1: and I are getting squeezed inside the strike zone. That
Speaker 1: Mariner's Nationals game a couple nights ago. It was eight
Speaker 1: to four Mariners, but the bases were loaded for the
Speaker 1: Nationals in the ninth and pictures like the strike three
Speaker 1: called to end the game with the bases loaded was
Speaker 1: two and a half inches outside of the strike zone,
Speaker 1: and the Mariners announcers were like, it's a call third strike.
Speaker 1: Mariners win it if you say so, Like it's gotten
Speaker 1: that bad, so maybe.
Speaker 3: It was a great call.
Speaker 2: Aaron Goldsmith, Yeah, that was a really good call, if
Speaker 2: you say so. And you know what's interesting, I'm glad
Speaker 2: I have you because i know you're a big tennis guy.
Speaker 3: And I've wondered.
Speaker 2: This from a challenge standpoint because I've seen it done
Speaker 2: in tennis. But I'm no expert on it, but it
Speaker 2: seems to me like it's fairly unobtrusive in tennis, Like hey,
Speaker 2: if at dinner out, they'll challenge it, it'll get reviewed,
Speaker 2: and it's, you know, right back to play. And I'm
Speaker 2: wondering if you would be a proponent of having like
Speaker 2: three challenges for each manager, would have that for fall
Speaker 2: strike call?
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely, But first of all, the tennis thing change
Speaker 1: the entire sport, right, Like you know, we grew up
Speaker 1: men of a certain age, People of a certain age
Speaker 1: grew up hearing John McEnroe screaming at umpires, Jimmy Connors
Speaker 1: screaming at umpires. El destasi if you if you're even older, right,
Speaker 1: but McEnroe famously you got to be kidding me. That's
Speaker 1: all out of the game. I mean. Now, it's not
Speaker 1: standardized over every tournament, but typically right the biggest tournaments.
Speaker 1: Some tournaments don't even have lines people anymore, mark right,
Speaker 1: They just have an umpire just to oversee things. But
Speaker 1: it's all done electronically. There is absolutely no argument. There
Speaker 1: are some there are somewhere, you know, the players. There
Speaker 1: has been instances where the players have wondered if the
Speaker 1: you know, if the technology has is precise to the line.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have seen that, but generally that's an outlier.
Speaker 1: It's completely changed the game. It's unobtrusive, to use your word,
Speaker 1: it moves it along. No one gets especially a game
Speaker 1: that's as mentally focused as tennis. No one gets bent
Speaker 1: out of shape. Generally speaking, I won't say no one,
Speaker 1: but once in a blue moon it happens, not really regularly,
Speaker 1: and in baseball like enough with the umpire lobby, like oh,
Speaker 1: you can't take balls and strikes away from us or
Speaker 1: if you argue balls and strikes, that's the quickest hook
Speaker 1: of them all, Like, stop with that shit already, if
Speaker 1: I may, like, I mean, it's twenty twenty three, for.
Speaker 3: God's sakes, I totally agree with it.
Speaker 2: You with you, And there's nothing more frustrating than whether
Speaker 2: you have a fantasy bet or game and you see
Speaker 2: that and you're like, I'm seeing this is a this
Speaker 2: is a ball, and they're calling it a strike and
Speaker 2: it's just costing me money. Yes, It's just very frustrating,
Speaker 2: especially when the when the DraftKings of the world are
Speaker 2: sponsoring Major League Baseball and I don't I don't know,
Speaker 2: like if Major League Baseball took a hard look at it,
Speaker 2: I think that they'd be like, hey, we need to
Speaker 2: change this. But I don't know why they haven't taken
Speaker 2: a hard look at it.
Speaker 1: Yill, Well, you're your point about that's costing you money,
Speaker 1: Like so that that Giants Diamondbacks game. So I had
Speaker 1: a bet on the Giants. I'm basically betting the Giants
Speaker 1: brain dead every single night, Like really, I'm like, the
Speaker 1: analysis is very thin. I'm just like, this team's not
Speaker 1: losing anybody, Like they've got it figured out what they're
Speaker 1: pitching with their back you know, forward approach with pitching.
Speaker 1: It's just unbelievable what far On Zaidi and that team
Speaker 1: are doing. Sort of the evolution of how the Royals
Speaker 1: you know, did it back to front when they got
Speaker 1: to two World Series and won one of them. In
Speaker 1: the middle part of last decade into the Rays using
Speaker 1: an opener. Now, the Giants are basically you know, there
Speaker 1: were there were there were papers at the MIT Sloan
Speaker 1: Sports Conference over a decade ago where they're like, if
Speaker 1: you can figure out the rest, the optimal way to
Speaker 1: play baseball would be two piecemeal pitchers together every night.
Speaker 1: And the Giants kind of doing that with three starters, right,
Speaker 1: they're just doing that when it's like there's so many
Speaker 1: games where they're like, you know, two innings here, two
Speaker 1: innings there, and it's working out great for them. But
Speaker 1: when I was getting back to them, sorry, I go
Speaker 1: to on the side with the Giants. But the Giants
Speaker 1: Diamondbacks game on Saturday, I had the Giants and they're winning.
Speaker 1: It's I don't remember how much they were winning by.
Speaker 1: I think they were winning by one run. I had
Speaker 1: a five inning bed and then a full game bet
Speaker 1: and you know there's a strike three that excuse me,
Speaker 1: there's a uh there's a ball way outside on a
Speaker 1: Giants batter that gets called a strike. End of inning.
Speaker 1: We go to the Diamondbacks side of it. So they're
Speaker 1: down a run. This is in the top of the
Speaker 1: fifth there's a strike three from Sean and I I
Speaker 1: can't remember the batter, it's called a ball. And of
Speaker 1: course the next pitch is a bas is clearing two out,
Speaker 1: know double, and so the diamond Mass go up. Now
Speaker 1: the Giants, because they're amazing, ended up getting two runs
Speaker 1: in the bottom half, and it ended up being tied
Speaker 1: after five. But like I was livid Mark after the
Speaker 1: top of the fifth inning, livid and yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2: These these bad calls are having material consequences in the
Speaker 2: in the games, and what if you had that guy
Speaker 2: on fantasy or what if you what if you had
Speaker 2: a fantasy team and you're playing.
Speaker 3: Against that guy?
Speaker 2: And so I don't think those here's two things, like,
Speaker 2: I don't think the sponsors are real happy with that.
Speaker 2: I don't think the DraftKings of the world want that
Speaker 2: to happen. I think that they want as clean of
Speaker 2: a game as possible, and I really think at MLB's
Speaker 2: cores they want as pure and clean of a game
Speaker 2: as possible as well, and so I think that there
Speaker 2: needs to be some some action taken over the off
Speaker 2: seasons as far as this goes, but they just they've
Speaker 2: just been slow to do it. But remember we were
Speaker 2: talking about the video review back when we first started
Speaker 2: doing this, and we didn't think that it would ever happen,
Speaker 2: but they they actually changed that. And so think about
Speaker 2: like how that like like effects a game even as
Speaker 2: a better Like like last night, there was a there
Speaker 2: was an overturn call that they called Fletcher from the
Speaker 2: Angels safe at first base. I had a bet on
Speaker 2: the Angels, but even though the call went against me,
Speaker 2: and this is my point, I felt, hey, this is okay,
Speaker 2: that that's the right call, and let's let's move on.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: I think I think that it'll be good for everybody,
Speaker 2: the game as a whole.
Speaker 3: So I'd like to see that go.
Speaker 1: I mean, even Show Hey right as great as Show
Speaker 1: Hey is. I don't know if you watched the Angels
Speaker 1: game last night. He had a great night both you know,
Speaker 1: hitting two home runs and pitching a great game. But
Speaker 1: he got a bunch of calls to pitching, where I'm like, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: well you know that worked. That worked out nicely for
Speaker 1: show as well. There was one other example, Oh you
Speaker 1: just jog my memory. Yes, we shouldn't forget that, you know,
Speaker 1: a decade ago or where I you know, the timeline
Speaker 1: escapes me now, but like I distinctly remember, this is
Speaker 1: more than a decade ago, I think, or maybe it
Speaker 1: was a decade by my time frame is all jacked up,
Speaker 1: so I think it's more than a decade when the
Speaker 1: Yankee were in the playoffs playing like the Justin Moore
Speaker 1: No Joe Mauer twins, So we're talking in the two thousands,
Speaker 1: in the in the odds decade. Like I distinctly remember
Speaker 1: a postseason game at Yankee Stadium, and I'm not making
Speaker 1: this up where I remember having the twins and either
Speaker 1: mau or more No went down the left field line
Speaker 1: and the ball was two inches inside the foul line,
Speaker 1: like it was a fair ball, should have been a double,
Speaker 1: and the umpire was like, nope, foul ball and it
Speaker 1: stood right. You're just like, are you kidding me?
Speaker 3: I had the same bet.
Speaker 2: That's funny that you said that I remember that because
Speaker 2: I had the same bet.
Speaker 1: Yes, so you remember it, and I was livid. And
Speaker 1: you know, in those days, you're like, sou too bad.
Speaker 1: The umpire didn't see it that way. So the fact
Speaker 1: that we were able to change that, like, why does
Speaker 1: it take forever to change balls and strikes? It's so dumb,
Speaker 1: so dumb.
Speaker 2: Anyway, And and I'll give MLB technology a shout out there.
Speaker 2: They're they're the technology that they incorporate with with pitch
Speaker 2: a fax. Yes, I mean, it's so good, it's really
Speaker 2: well done. And let's let's use it. You guys got it,
Speaker 2: let's use it.
Speaker 1: Okay, we didn't. We didn't anticipate going on that aside,
Speaker 1: But once again, Marquez very reliable over ump Couzy and
Speaker 1: Miller very reliable underrumps and the numbers this year in
Speaker 1: the first eighty games roughly back it up, all right, now,
Speaker 1: let's get to I used to I used to compile
Speaker 1: these on my own first five betting numbers. I don't
Speaker 1: have time to do it anymore. But Odds Shark, Joe
Speaker 1: Straus get Odds Shark did it for many years now
Speaker 1: that they says the Odds Shark staff. So it might
Speaker 1: not be Joe, but shout out to him, Shout out
Speaker 1: to the whole odd Shark staff for compiling first five
Speaker 1: money line records. And what I'm curious about here, Mark,
Speaker 1: as with all of this, is what do you believe
Speaker 1: to be sustainable? And what do you believe to be
Speaker 1: just an aberration that will not be sustainable. So, the
Speaker 1: biggest money winners thus far this year. If you bet
Speaker 1: this team blindly on the money line each and every
Speaker 1: first five thus far this year, the number one team
Speaker 1: is by far the Texas Rangers. You'd be up seventeen
Speaker 1: units betting them every time on the first five. They're
Speaker 1: forty nine to twenty and nine. Keep in mind their
Speaker 1: pushes in first five forty nine to twenty and nine.
Speaker 1: Betting first fives, you'd be up seventeen units this parad Shark.
Speaker 1: The Rays would be number two, you'd be up ten
Speaker 1: and a half units roughly, and the Astros would be
Speaker 1: number three. You'd be up over eight and a half units. Rangers, Rays, Astros,
Speaker 1: by the way, Braves, Marlins at Giants. After that is,
Speaker 1: are any of those teams surprising to you?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: Because Texas has been so good offensively and they have
Speaker 2: the widest run differential, the best run differential first five innings.
Speaker 2: I did this yesterday is one hundred and eighteen run
Speaker 2: difference in the first five is Texas. But from a
Speaker 2: sustainability standpoint, you do have to gosh them losing your gramaw,
Speaker 2: how huge is that?
Speaker 3: Yet their first is still in first place. It amazes me.
Speaker 1: So they Evaldi became to grom Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: I think the Evaldi is sustainable. He's had a hell
Speaker 2: of a year and the stuff it matches the numbers
Speaker 2: and the advanced numbers as well. But you gotta think
Speaker 2: Hany Perez, Dunning Gray, I don't know, you know, I
Speaker 2: don't know if those guys can can hang.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're way ahead in first five numbers, so
Speaker 1: I don't think the margin is sustainable. But because I
Speaker 1: mean they're just crushing into it. Like second place is
Speaker 1: seven units less, right, like almost seven units less than
Speaker 1: them the Rays, But it's Rangers raise Astros. It should
Speaker 1: be pointed out by the way that they're in terms
Speaker 1: of like if I narrowed it down to how many teams,
Speaker 1: if you bet them every single day on the first five,
Speaker 1: how many teams would have gotten you more than two
Speaker 1: units to the positive per odd Shark's numbers, it's a
Speaker 1: grand total of six teams Rangers, raise Astros, Braves, Marlins,
Speaker 1: and Giants. That's it. Every other team. And this has
Speaker 1: a lot to do with first five straddle right where
Speaker 1: you lose more juice when you're betting first fives than
Speaker 1: you are the the associated full game line, if you will.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's the list. So it's it's you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know I first fives. People are like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: starting pitchers, so violidle, I'll just bet first fives. And
Speaker 1: it's not as easy as it sounds.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you're playing it into more juice too, so
Speaker 2: you always got to you got to start there. And
Speaker 2: I prefer if I can to play a full game,
Speaker 2: but you have to have really good bullpen numbers as well.
Speaker 3: So that's that's that's a process.
Speaker 1: By the way. That by the way, does the seventh
Speaker 1: place team surprise you? The seventh place team first five
Speaker 1: is the Cubs? Does that surprise you?
Speaker 3: You know it is it's surprising.
Speaker 2: I'm looking at their their run differential that it's fourteen
Speaker 2: in the in the first five, and you know, I'm
Speaker 2: trying to think it like it's actually pretty good in
Speaker 2: the second and the second half of the game too.
Speaker 2: I did first five and last four and then and
Speaker 2: the Cubs are fourteen and five and eighteen and last four.
Speaker 2: So you know, we talked a little bit about this yesterday.
Speaker 2: Gil I like this Cub's bullpens, so that that could
Speaker 2: be a team to look at from a division standpoint.
Speaker 1: Interesting, All right, let's say the worst teams. What are
Speaker 1: the worst first five teams? Well, this shouldn't surprise. This
Speaker 1: is the worst in like I can imagine. You know,
Speaker 1: usually when you and I do this, there's some difference
Speaker 1: between full game and first five, or home and road,
Speaker 1: or money line and run line. The Royals and A's
Speaker 1: have been so epically bad that it doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: we look at. They're just awful. Right, So the Royals,
Speaker 1: let's say you're like, well, I didn't bet them money line, bizarro,
Speaker 1: I didn't bet them run line bizarrow? What would bizarrow?
Speaker 1: What would they be first five? Yeah, they'd have cost
Speaker 1: you twenty and a half unit's betting, you know, first five. Also,
Speaker 1: they're the worst. Athletics are the second worst, eighteen point
Speaker 1: seventy five units. You know, hemorrhaging to the in the
Speaker 1: Red you'd be eighteen point seventy five units. Cause you
Speaker 1: know the Royals first five they're twenty one, forty five,
Speaker 1: and twelve, and the A's are nineteen, forty seven and fourteen.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just awful. Now, these three teams might
Speaker 1: surprise you. To round out the top five Red Sox, Phillies, Mets,
Speaker 1: they're all double digits to the negative first five. Who's
Speaker 1: the most surprising of those three?
Speaker 3: The Mets are you think what they're pitching?
Speaker 2: You know, so they have had some injury, but I
Speaker 2: mean they I think they might have the two biggest
Speaker 2: contracts from a starting pitching standpoint in baseball, and so
Speaker 2: that is surprising. And I think one of the things
Speaker 2: that's interesting as I was doing these run differentials was
Speaker 2: the Mets minus thirty seven run differential first five and
Speaker 2: then if you look at the last four, they're actually
Speaker 2: seventeen ahead, so quite a minute a bit of difference
Speaker 2: there with the Mets.
Speaker 1: That's actually something we should track, by the way, Like
Speaker 1: we're always you know, you can bet first five, but
Speaker 1: there's certain places where you can actually bet. I think
Speaker 1: afterwards Todd Wishnev used to track this for us, like
Speaker 1: what teams sixth inning on are actually the best in baseball?
Speaker 1: Like if you it's an interesting way to look at
Speaker 1: it because it shows you whose bullpens are better. But
Speaker 1: like you, it was interesting what you said about the
Speaker 1: first five. The Rangers. It's not so much of the pitching.
Speaker 1: It's just they outslug you, they out hit you. And
Speaker 1: so again they got there. However they got there. They're
Speaker 1: up seventeen units. Is it sustainable? Yes, to that extent,
Speaker 1: I don't know. By the way, though, the other ones
Speaker 1: that rounded out the worst in terms of the first
Speaker 1: five bets. So it's Royals worst, Athletics second, Red Sox
Speaker 1: third worst, Phillies' fourth worst, Mets fifth worst, per odd
Speaker 1: Sharks the top ten worst first five, rounding them out sixth,
Speaker 1: White Sox again over ten units down, Cardinals seventh. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Cardinals have just been an abject disappointment thus far.
Speaker 1: You like the Cardinals. They're moving forward.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think if they can get this, you know,
Speaker 2: league average pitching from their pitching, which they've done all year,
Speaker 2: I think that they have they have a possibility. Although
Speaker 2: obviously you're going to get better, but they've they've lost
Speaker 2: so much equity in that division that I you know,
Speaker 2: for me, I think it's the Cubs in that division
Speaker 2: from a value standpoint.
Speaker 1: Interesting Mariners also, you know, almost nine units down first five,
Speaker 1: Padres over eight units down first five, Dodgers over eight
Speaker 1: units down first five, Twins over eight units down first five,
Speaker 1: and Blue Jay's eight units down first five. So that's
Speaker 1: the thing about first five inning betting. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: sort of a PSA for don't think it's that easy.
Speaker 1: Like I always say that to people, like, you know,
Speaker 1: five years ago, ten years ago, the asked me what's
Speaker 1: your favorite sport to bett? It would have been based
Speaker 1: you know, I would. I used to say baseball. Everything
Speaker 1: else is a distant second. It's not like that for
Speaker 1: me anymore because starting pitchers get taken out much earlier
Speaker 1: than they used to, So for me, it's less quantifiable.
Speaker 1: I'm not as deep in the weeds as you are
Speaker 1: where you can sustain this. So for me, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's gone a little by the wayside. And a lot
Speaker 1: of times when I say that, people are like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: just bet the first five. Yeah, It's not that simple,
Speaker 1: is what we're showing here.
Speaker 2: You know, It's just the thing, you know, I think,
Speaker 2: what what happen you know, I guess maybe outside of
Speaker 2: the last five years, is you'd have a pitcher that
Speaker 2: would be.
Speaker 3: Bad and they just stay with him. You'll be like, well, he's.
Speaker 2: Got a contract and you know he will turn it around, right. Well,
Speaker 2: they these these teams, all of them aren't way this guy.
Speaker 2: If this guy's showing something bad, they're not going to
Speaker 2: stay with him. So so that's one thing that you
Speaker 2: got going on. And then it's hard to juggling act.
Speaker 2: You really got to be able to balance that. And
Speaker 2: it's gonna and I think moving forward from a handicapping standpoint,
Speaker 2: it's I think all these teams are going to go
Speaker 2: to openers and guys pitching two winnings because, like you
Speaker 2: said earlier on the show, that the math makes sense,
Speaker 2: and so uh as they see teams succeed with it,
Speaker 2: like Tampa Bay, like San Francisco, they're gonna be like, well,
Speaker 2: we needed these guys are doing really good with this.
Speaker 3: Let's let's change, you know.
Speaker 2: So yeah, gonna make bottom bottom line is going to
Speaker 2: make handicapping baseball a more detailed process in my opinion.
Speaker 1: And I know you love that, but like to the
Speaker 1: mirror mortal, that's going to be so much much more difficult,
Speaker 1: don't you think, Like the person who's.
Speaker 2: A call I had to, yeah, because there's so much
Speaker 2: to there's so much data that you have to balance,
Speaker 2: and so like I took time out the last couple
Speaker 2: of years, a lot of time out to learn Python programming,
Speaker 2: and I just felt like I needed to do it
Speaker 2: because the data is not as easy to process as
Speaker 2: it used to be.
Speaker 1: Gil Man, I love it. Like you and me are
Speaker 1: cut from the same class. So the more you talk,
Speaker 1: the more fascinating I am by it. I really wonder,
Speaker 1: like how many people are like you at this point,
Speaker 1: because I wonder how much like baseball modelers, I wonder
Speaker 1: what the attrition of that has been through the last
Speaker 1: five years, Like there's got to be a huge percentage
Speaker 1: layoff where people are just like, I can't do this anymore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because there's just such a such an available amount
Speaker 2: of data that you know, it's it's really hard. It's
Speaker 2: it's hard to balance it. It's hard to say, Okay,
Speaker 2: well this is great. Data looks good, is it descriptive,
Speaker 2: is it predictive?
Speaker 3: And the fact that it it used to be.
Speaker 2: I think the teams would hold on to players so
Speaker 2: you'd get more of a sample I guess of either good, bad,
Speaker 2: or indifferent.
Speaker 3: You'd have a bigger sample.
Speaker 2: But as these teams are seeing things, then you don't
Speaker 2: have time to like, Okay, well this is this is
Speaker 2: the true talent level of this guy. Yeah, then be
Speaker 2: able to ride it for a while. So it's just
Speaker 2: it's just very changeable, like like the data is moving fast.
Speaker 3: I guess is that the.
Speaker 1: Data is moving fast. Is a great way of putting it,
Speaker 1: because you know, at the risk of sounding like we're
Speaker 1: some of the Vagus old timers, because you know, even
Speaker 1: when we got you know, we were doing our baseball handicapping,
Speaker 1: we'd always hear stories of oh, it was so much
Speaker 1: easier back in our day, right even ten years ago. Man,
Speaker 1: all I all we'd have to do is go to
Speaker 1: a fangrass page and we have the podcast to prove
Speaker 1: this right, and we would just look at you know,
Speaker 1: hacks like E minus f right, the era A minus
Speaker 1: fielding independent. We would see babb it, we would see
Speaker 1: the home run to fly ball rate, we would see
Speaker 1: all the basic stats that we needed. Feeling independent xpip
Speaker 1: and just based on a Fangrafts page, we could exploit baseball.
Speaker 1: You talk about like pitchers who sucked that they would
Speaker 1: stick with, and we could exploit that. It was also like,
Speaker 1: I remember, let's just go back nine years when Jacob
Speaker 1: de Grom was having his first year with the Mets
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, so it was before he was really Jacob
Speaker 1: de Grom, right before he was winning in Cy Young's
Speaker 1: And I just remember that summer backing him over and
Speaker 1: over and over again at really favorable prices, like a
Speaker 1: dog and short favorite prices, and you just remember, you're like,
Speaker 1: that couldn't exist today, right because someone who comes out
Speaker 1: now people know about him so quickly, and those numbers
Speaker 1: don't last more than two or three starts tops, so
Speaker 1: it's more difficult.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And I remember, you know, to get to get
Speaker 4: to what you did, there's Derek Lowe, Like you kept
Speaker 4: bending against Derek low and they kept throwing him out there.
Speaker 3: They wouldn't. That wouldn't happen right now, It.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't happen done, And we don't. We almost had, we
Speaker 1: almost had to pour out of forty when they decided
Speaker 1: to send him down. We're like, oh, that was fun. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was fun. I'm so glad. I'm so sad that
Speaker 1: they took him away from us. All right, And here's
Speaker 1: the last thing. First innings. Now, a lot of people
Speaker 1: like to bet first innings. Jason Weingarten and I for
Speaker 1: years on the show on a numbers game and on
Speaker 1: the podcast, we've talked about betting yes nos, Yes, we'll
Speaker 1: a run be scored, no run will not be scored
Speaker 1: in the first inning. Now, what's interesting is that when
Speaker 1: we used to do it, it felt like we were
Speaker 1: the only ones. Obviously we weren't the only ones, but
Speaker 1: we were one of very few people doing it, and
Speaker 1: there was a method to what we were doing. And
Speaker 1: I said many years on the show, and it's the
Speaker 1: one thing I will not reveal, the secret sauce to.
Speaker 1: What has been fascinating to watch is how there's been
Speaker 1: a sort of cottage industry developed now on yes first
Speaker 1: run inning and no first run inning, and how people
Speaker 1: gravitate to the no, which is not what you're supposed
Speaker 1: to do, by the way. So a lot of sportsbooks
Speaker 1: sort of exploit that and they promote those bets, and
Speaker 1: they're promoting in a way that is kind of leading
Speaker 1: you astray. But one of the things that we have
Speaker 1: always tracked, and it is not exactly that key to betting. Yes,
Speaker 1: no first inning runs, but can inform your bigger wagers
Speaker 1: is how pitchers perform right out of gate, just the
Speaker 1: first frame, the very first inning. And so what we
Speaker 1: do here, and this is proprietary on this show, you
Speaker 1: won't hear it anywhere else. This is minimum forty played appearances.
Speaker 1: I said it at forty mark three eighty games. Maybe
Speaker 1: you want to adjust that, but I said at minimum
Speaker 1: forty played appearances against. This is opposing hitters on base percentage.
Speaker 1: The worst starting pitchers in baseball in the first inning
Speaker 1: this year Jack Flaherty the Cardinals. Wow, I wouldn't have
Speaker 1: expected that before the season for eighty on base against
Speaker 1: in the first inning. Luke Weaver of the Reds for
Speaker 1: seventy on base against. Then you have a Romsi Contreras
Speaker 1: of the Pittsburgh Pirates third worst, Ryan Weathers of the
Speaker 1: Padres fourth worst, and then Luis Ortiz another Pirate, another
Speaker 1: Bucco fifth worst in terms of the first inning. Do
Speaker 1: you do you run those numbers? Do you have others
Speaker 1: in there?
Speaker 3: Oh, I've got that they're consistent with what you have
Speaker 3: top to bottom.
Speaker 2: But I'm just trying to see if there's like a
Speaker 2: bigger name down down the down the line.
Speaker 1: That Lance Lynn is on, you know as the top
Speaker 1: ten worst. Alec Manoa no surprise to anybody, He's has
Speaker 1: had a terrible season. He's a top ten worst first inning.
Speaker 1: When you get to top twenty, Verlander is like thirty.
Speaker 1: I got I gotta see exactly how many.
Speaker 2: He's like a three seventy on base percentage. But is
Speaker 2: Wolba's zero point four to five eight, which is fifth
Speaker 2: the WOBOs, fifth worst in in UH in baseball?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, did I passed Verlander? Where did he go? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So Verlander is in the in the worst. Yeah, he's
Speaker 1: in the worst forty. Like names like Wainwright, Verlander, Carrasco, Cindergard,
Speaker 1: Corbin Burns, Pablo Lopez, Max Scherzer, they're all in the bottom.
Speaker 1: They're all in the bottom forty. They're like between thirty
Speaker 1: and fortieth worst. And Verlander to your point three seventy
Speaker 1: on base against first innings.
Speaker 3: That's surprising to me.
Speaker 2: And you know the other one's surprising twenty eight is
Speaker 2: Alex Cobb because Alex husband Good.
Speaker 1: Alex Cobb is in there as well. That's right. So
Speaker 1: and Verlander. Remember there was a time where Verlander even
Speaker 1: admitted this is like way back when I'd say not
Speaker 1: quite ten years ago, but I remember when Verlander would
Speaker 1: admit publicly, I don't know what it is, but I'm
Speaker 1: never ready in the first inning. I only settled down
Speaker 1: in the second. And he used to say, it goes,
Speaker 1: he goes, maybe I should just start warming up earlier, right,
Speaker 1: And then he won another cy Young or whatever since then,
Speaker 1: But that used to be a thing with him, that
Speaker 1: he sucked in the first inning. And here we are
Speaker 1: again and he's sucking in the first inning.
Speaker 2: So that's interesting. I'll have to look at his historical
Speaker 2: numbers on that. That'll give me food for thought for today.
Speaker 2: Gil Good good poll on that, all right?
Speaker 1: And the best in the first inning thus far this year,
Speaker 1: Hunter Green is your best one thirty six opposing on
Speaker 1: base against first inning. And then after him comes a
Speaker 1: sort of who's who you Darvish Hey, sous Lussarto, fran Bervaldez,
Speaker 1: Sonny Gray, Christian Javier, I guess Joe Ryan Fell after
Speaker 1: last night's performance, I don't see him anymore. But he
Speaker 1: wasn't there. But he's not there anymore. But anyway, all
Speaker 1: those guys fantastic in the first inning thus far this
Speaker 1: year minimum forty played appearances against a lot of those
Speaker 1: sound pretty sustainable to you, I would imagine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, those those are pretty good pictures that you just mentioned.
Speaker 2: I thought it was an interesting Graham Ashcraft. I have
Speaker 2: it two sixteen.
Speaker 3: I don't know where you have.
Speaker 1: He's top ten, he's tenth to sixteen exactly, Graham Ashcraft.
Speaker 3: Yes, we're on that. And then this one's interest.
Speaker 2: This this picture is interesting to me because I follow
Speaker 2: the Angels a lot read debt. Meers is top ten
Speaker 2: to twenty as I have him, and I think that
Speaker 2: guy's sustainable.
Speaker 3: I think think that could be the Angel's missing piece there.
Speaker 2: So they could go if Deptmers can pitch like he
Speaker 2: has the last couple of times, they go, o Tani.
Speaker 2: Deptmers have to have two legitimate like you know, top
Speaker 2: top level. They can't compare debts.
Speaker 3: With Otani, but you can.
Speaker 2: You know, if you can just get that kind of
Speaker 2: production with that lineup, there might be something to that
Speaker 2: Angel's game.
Speaker 1: Go. Yeah. The other thing is, like you see when
Speaker 1: you delve into these kind of when you get more
Speaker 1: granular like this, because we talked about how when you're
Speaker 1: okay starting pitchers, if you bet these starting pitchers blindly,
Speaker 1: they would have been the biggest hemorrhagers of money thus
Speaker 1: far this year. Well, Blake Snell was on the bottom ten,
Speaker 1: and we quickly said, well, he's pitching great now, he
Speaker 1: won't last year long first innings, he's top fifteen best
Speaker 1: first innings. You know who else's top fifteen best first
Speaker 1: innings and is having a horrible year by any measure,
Speaker 1: Sandy al Kantara of the Marlins. So you do see,
Speaker 1: you know, when you get a little granu're like, okay,
Speaker 1: maybe this is what's going to win out in the
Speaker 1: end if they start games this well, like you know, again,
Speaker 1: this is only first time. Not only is the only
Speaker 1: first time through the order, it's oftentimes first three batters, right,
Speaker 1: So a lot of these guys you have to look
Speaker 1: at their attrition second time through, third time through. Like
Speaker 1: Otani they were talking about last night. Otani is great
Speaker 1: first time through and third time through, but he's not
Speaker 1: as good second time through, which is really interesting, right,
Speaker 1: Usually usually doesn't work that way, it's interesting.
Speaker 2: But you know what, you know what you I think
Speaker 2: you you have touched upon something that's actionable if you
Speaker 2: can find somebody. I'm looking at Strider and he's like
Speaker 2: two fifty and twenty fifth place, But like, I don't
Speaker 2: have Strider as a twenty fifth pitcher.
Speaker 3: By my brain is I have number one by a lot.
Speaker 2: So maybe he's a guy that you wait and you
Speaker 2: bet some live stuff on after that first inning, and
Speaker 2: you could you could compare the guy's prowess I guess
Speaker 2: in the first inning to to the rest of the
Speaker 2: game and maybe come up with some good, good live ideas.
Speaker 2: So that's one of the beauties of doing this show
Speaker 2: with you, Gil is like you inspired thought on me,
Speaker 2: which is cool.
Speaker 3: I mean, I love it.
Speaker 1: I mean it it reveals stuff like we don't do this.
Speaker 1: That's why we do it every quarter because it's sort
Speaker 1: of we like to be surprised by what we find,
Speaker 1: because you're into baseball as much as anybody, and even
Speaker 1: you are surprised by certain things. Let's end with something
Speaker 1: you just said, because that's basically the derivatives we wanted
Speaker 1: to go through all the way from moms to first fives,
Speaker 1: to first innings. You know, stuff that's more widely available,
Speaker 1: stuff that's less widely available, But you bring up Spencer Strider.
Speaker 1: So I opened a numbers game this morning because of
Speaker 1: Otani's great night last night, both hitting and pitching, and
Speaker 1: I talked about how Otani, I mean, he's minus fourteen
Speaker 1: hundred to win AL MVP. Only only an injury or
Speaker 1: a trade to the National League could beat him now.
Speaker 1: So then I was like, okay, well could he win
Speaker 1: the AL Si Young? He's eleven to one, he's the
Speaker 1: fifth shortest shot, and you have guys like McClanahan who
Speaker 1: is the shortest shot above him, and three other guys
Speaker 1: like Valdez for instance. And my theory was, you know,
Speaker 1: he does lead in three big catories right like on
Speaker 1: base excuse me, batting average against and a strikeout rate
Speaker 1: or two of them just off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: But would they vote would they vote him cy Young
Speaker 1: if they're going to give him the MVP? And my
Speaker 1: thought is humans are humans, They're dumb. They probably won't, right,
Speaker 1: like he would have to just go ridiculous. And Tom Tango,
Speaker 1: who's got the most tried and true Tom Tango, who
Speaker 1: invented fielding independent pitching. For instance, FIP FIP tom Tango
Speaker 1: has the most reliable cy Young points system there ever was,
Speaker 1: which has nothing to do with advanced stats. Right. I
Speaker 1: won't bore you with the formula, but it's like the
Speaker 1: simplest formula for coming up with it. And the last
Speaker 1: six years twelve different SI Young's al and NL. He
Speaker 1: has picked seven out of the last twelve perfectly. He's
Speaker 1: got McClanahan as his top SI Young guy right now.
Speaker 1: He's also the shortest in the market in the American League.
Speaker 1: The interesting part comes in the National League because I
Speaker 1: went through this and will end on this. You brought
Speaker 1: up Strider. I went through the exercise yesterday where I
Speaker 1: went through I'm like, okay, I was talking about Joe Otani.
Speaker 1: I figured, oh, Toni's not gonna get cy Young. What
Speaker 1: about the National league? National League is far more fascinating
Speaker 1: because when I went through the numbers, and what I
Speaker 1: care about is EER juxtaposed against FIP and x FIP,
Speaker 1: but also your expected ra I care about you know,
Speaker 1: your war your win loss record a little bit, but
Speaker 1: your k rate, your walk rate, batting average against WHIP.
Speaker 1: Like I'm going through all these different numbers, and when
Speaker 1: I go through that, really the guy that ends up
Speaker 1: leading in most or is just about to lead. And
Speaker 1: even more is Strider and Strider's plus seven fifty And
Speaker 1: I texted Jason last time, I'm like, how is Spencer
Speaker 1: Strider plus seven fifty? He shouldn't be. There's no way
Speaker 1: I'm gonna bet that tomorrow, meaning today, And I think
Speaker 1: I am going to bet that mark And it sounds
Speaker 1: like you kind of agree with me before you answer.
Speaker 1: I just want to add the Tom Tango point though,
Speaker 1: So Tango does it much simpler. You know who his
Speaker 1: number one nlsy young guy is right now, I'll give
Speaker 1: you five guesses.
Speaker 3: Oh but Strider it's not. I don't know I did.
Speaker 3: This is a market where I'm like, I'm with you,
Speaker 3: I'm like perplexed on it.
Speaker 2: It's like Strider's the best picture strikeouts that's in baseball
Speaker 2: when's losses, which I did a little bit of a
Speaker 2: study last year on the cy young and when's loses
Speaker 2: and strikeouts are really two of the key drivers. Yes,
Speaker 2: and he's he's there too, So maybe kerse shot, maybe kershot.
Speaker 1: Nope, So the market right now has well to use
Speaker 1: the draft Kings number. Zach Gallen is plus one sixty
Speaker 1: five to win the National League sy Young Award, Clayton
Speaker 1: Kershaw's plus four twenty five, Stryder's plus seven point fifty,
Speaker 1: which to me is just like, man, it's such a
Speaker 1: bang for your buck. On that Logan Webb with the
Speaker 1: Giants is nine to one, Zach Wheeler's nine to one.
Speaker 1: It's none of those guys. It's Marcus Stroman of the Cubs,
Speaker 1: according to Tango right now, who's twenty to one, and
Speaker 1: again based on his super simple formula, and I'll try
Speaker 1: to find that here as I speak. It has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with those advanced stats that I just talked about.
Speaker 1: So he loves again. What he is basically getting at
Speaker 1: is you and I can talk till we're blue in
Speaker 1: the face about well, yeah, I mean special Strider's strikeout
Speaker 1: percentage just thirty eight point two percent. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the most incredible thing we've ever seen in our lives.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't matter to the average cy young voter.
Speaker 1: They're like, I'm sorry, what's his batting average against? And
Speaker 1: what's his win loss record? Like that kind of thing.
Speaker 3: What are they looking at? Er, that's terrible here's rible.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you the tango formula for Cy Young
Speaker 1: and you're just gonna laugh. And then he's gonna laugh
Speaker 1: back in your face because he's gonna be like, I've
Speaker 1: hit seven of twelve, and not only have I have
Speaker 1: seven of the last twelve, but I almost give you
Speaker 1: the exact order every time. So here's his here's his formula.
Speaker 1: Let me say, call up my laptop juiced out, but
Speaker 1: I'm doing it on my phone so it's taking a second.
Speaker 1: But here it is the tap the tom tango Cy
Speaker 1: Young points formula. I know, boys and girls, you didn't
Speaker 1: think there'd be math on this show, but it's really simple.
Speaker 1: It's innings pitch divided by twos earned runs. So that's
Speaker 1: a fraction, right. Innings pitched is the numerator, two minus
Speaker 1: earned runs is the denominator plus strikeouts divided by ten
Speaker 1: plus wins. Exactly what you were just saying. Strikeouts and wins.
Speaker 2: They they I think the stridegous and wins do too.
Speaker 3: I guess that earned.
Speaker 2: I guess he's got earned runs in there, so he does.
Speaker 2: That would hurt Stryder a little bit because he has
Speaker 2: he has given up more so gosh, I just I
Speaker 2: can't see guy. How about watching both guys and saying,
Speaker 2: oh my god, look at this guy like he's watched
Speaker 2: Strider pitch.
Speaker 3: It's just it's it's it. It is impressive.
Speaker 2: And I've watched a lot of pitchers, uh, in my day,
Speaker 2: starting when I was nine years old. Nolan Ryan, who
Speaker 2: I love, and he's a great pitcher. But like I gosh,
Speaker 2: I hate to say this, Gill, but I think Strider's
Speaker 2: better than Nolan Ryan. I really do.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: So here's the thing. The comp is exactly great. The
Speaker 1: comp for Strider based on his high strikeout rate, the
Speaker 1: low batting average against is Nolan Ryan. Historically, you know what,
Speaker 1: Nolan Ryan never did Mark never won a cy Young. Never.
Speaker 1: It's one of the most crazy.
Speaker 3: That is such a crazy number.
Speaker 1: Wow, we never want a si Young. Most no hitters
Speaker 1: in the history of baseball. Seven, he had the most
Speaker 1: one hitters, He had the most two hitters. Like this
Speaker 1: dude was out of control, by the way, great documentary
Speaker 1: recommendation on Netflix facing Nolan never won a cy Young.
Speaker 1: Why didn't he win a cy Young because he had
Speaker 1: a really high walk rate and so kind of two
Speaker 1: does Strider.
Speaker 3: But I'm a true story, but I think that the
Speaker 3: wins are important.
Speaker 2: So I think that the wins. He played on some
Speaker 2: crappy teams, and he did. The Braves are probably the
Speaker 2: best team in baseball.
Speaker 3: That's going to help.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. They're the best team in baseball. And
Speaker 1: he's nine and two strider. So I'm going out. I
Speaker 1: don't have an in pocket yet, but I'm going out
Speaker 1: and I'm betting him plus seven fifty today. The only
Speaker 1: other baseball that I have in pocket awards wise, I
Speaker 1: have Louis a. Riaz of the of the Miami Marlins.
Speaker 1: I got him at eighty to one to win National
Speaker 1: League MVP, the entire theory being that if he hits
Speaker 1: four hundred, they gotta give it to him. Now, I
Speaker 1: know that's a debate, but my whole thing was and
Speaker 1: why I got him, by the way, he's twenty five
Speaker 1: to one. Now, my whole thing was in twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: you and I used to do a podcast at the time.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you'll remember this conversation. It was
Speaker 1: a debate between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout. For those
Speaker 1: who are listened to betting dork and beating the book
Speaker 1: for years. You'll remember this. It was a debate between
Speaker 1: Cabrera and Mike Trout, And my point in twenty twelve was,
Speaker 1: they haven't had a triple crown in forty five years, right,
Speaker 1: Carlia Strmsky in nineteen sixty seven. You cannot talk about
Speaker 1: something for forty five years, this hallowed baseball thing, this
Speaker 1: triple crown, and then decide arbitrarily when someone finally does it,
Speaker 1: which Miguel Cabrera did. Oh, we liked Mike. We like
Speaker 1: Mike Trout's new fangled metrics better. No, you have to
Speaker 1: give it to Miguel Cabrera, and they did, to their credit. Now,
Speaker 1: the next year, you can give it Trout, you can
Speaker 1: give it everybody else you want to, and they did.
Speaker 1: They give it a Trout the next year, but that
Speaker 1: year you had to give it to Cabrera. My thing
Speaker 1: with the with hitting four hundred, and by the way,
Speaker 1: a rise is still a huge long shot to get there.
Speaker 1: As we do this on June twenty eighth, he's hitting
Speaker 1: three ninety nine. But if he hits four hundred, which
Speaker 1: hasn't been done since nineteen forty one, and Ted Williams
Speaker 1: four h six, and we've had flirtations George Bett George
Speaker 1: Brett in our childhood, most famously Rod Carew three ninety
Speaker 1: and three eighty eight, respectively. And I know Tony Gwynn
Speaker 1: hit three ninety four in the ninety four strike season,
Speaker 1: but if he hits four hundred, I don't care what
Speaker 1: you're doing, Ronald Acuna. You have to give it to
Speaker 1: Louis Airias. That's what I'm going with.
Speaker 3: Anyway, I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I think you're right, Gil, and Nakuta has had a
Speaker 2: hell of a year. I mean, it would be a
Speaker 2: shame for him not to get it. It would, but
Speaker 2: I think they'll give it. I think I'm with you.
Speaker 2: I think they'll give it to a rise.
Speaker 1: And to your point, yes, the Braves are the best,
Speaker 1: but the Marlins right now are in a wildcard position.
Speaker 1: So if the Marlins also get to a wild card,
Speaker 1: that would be you know, another feather in his cap
Speaker 1: as well, and they would way have an exceeded xpectations
Speaker 1: by doing so. The only other thing I have is
Speaker 1: that I don't expect to win this, but I have
Speaker 1: Elie Dela Cruz at thirty to one to win the
Speaker 1: National League Rookie of the Year Carrol Gorvin Carroll of
Speaker 1: the Diamondbacks is the big favorite right now. Cruz Dela
Speaker 1: Cruz is four to one at this point, but I
Speaker 1: don't know if he can get there. But man, is
Speaker 1: he amazing and he represents to me why this baseball
Speaker 1: season has been so awesome so far.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's that's a good point that that team's been exciting.
Speaker 2: The Orioles are exciting. There's so many and the pitch
Speaker 2: clock is just I knew it would be good, but
Speaker 2: not this good. This really makes baseball enjoyable for us.
Speaker 2: It just from a rhythm standpoint, The rhythm is great.
Speaker 1: Do you know, let's put it this way. Do you
Speaker 1: know one person, one human being who has been like,
Speaker 1: you know what, I really hate this pitch clock. I
Speaker 1: really liked it when they took all the time in
Speaker 1: the world.
Speaker 3: Oh, I don't know anybody.
Speaker 2: It was like, Oh, I wish it was back before
Speaker 2: when Kenley Jansen was doing laps around the infield.
Speaker 1: That's right, when a row this chap would throw one
Speaker 1: pitch and that take two laps around the mound before
Speaker 1: you threw another. Yeah, nobody wants.
Speaker 2: That, and I think it's attracting people who are kind
Speaker 2: of on the on the on the bubble. I've talked
Speaker 2: to a couple of people like, oh, this is great,
Speaker 2: I can watch I can actually enjoy watching baseball, and
Speaker 2: so it's good.
Speaker 3: It's good. Well job, man, ILB. Now let's do the
Speaker 3: strike zone here, dude.
Speaker 1: Let's do the strike zone. Let's make it perfect. Let's
Speaker 1: do the strike zone. Listen. We used to do Q one,
Speaker 1: Q two, Q three on on the podcast side back
Speaker 1: in the day. We do it on the radio side.
Speaker 1: Now we only kind of do the Q two on
Speaker 1: the podcast side. But I always appreciated market and you're right,
Speaker 1: you were the first podcast guest ever. I will always
Speaker 1: cherish you for that. I always thank you for that. Man.
Speaker 1: I'm glad we have sustained it all these years, man,
Speaker 1: And congratulations on all your success and people should know
Speaker 1: you and Jason Winegarden, who I like to think where
Speaker 1: I gave birth to on the podcast. You guys do
Speaker 1: your own show together now, that's.
Speaker 2: Great and you've really opened a lot of doors for
Speaker 2: me personally, Gil, So I thank you for that. And uh,
Speaker 2: you know, always always a pleasure to be on with
Speaker 2: the voices Sports Betting Okay, wonderful, you know, but you
Speaker 2: really inspire thoughts. So now I've got a couple of
Speaker 2: different things, and it's like we should do this more often,
Speaker 2: we should should bring more and more often.
Speaker 1: It's great, love it and again Mark's appearances on a
Speaker 1: numbers game every Tuesday on v SIN, the Sports Betting Network, Mark,
Speaker 1: thank you appreciated At base Winter Based Winter dot com
Speaker 1: the base Winter podcast. How often are you doing Base
Speaker 1: Winter podcast now that you're doing the bet Us show
Speaker 1: with Jason?
Speaker 3: Haven't done many this year.
Speaker 2: I think we've done too so far this year because
Speaker 2: it's every day that I'm that people you know, can
Speaker 2: interact with me. That's one cool thing about the show too,
Speaker 2: is like people can ask questions and I really enjoy
Speaker 2: that part of it.
Speaker 3: There, Yeah, physics in there, he's in there.
Speaker 1: Sure, Okay, say finish your thought, we'll go What were
Speaker 1: you saying there at the end?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll probably I'll probably kick out a couple more
Speaker 2: podcasts just from a technical standpoint. I like to talk
Speaker 2: about the technical side on on the podcast because the
Speaker 2: host Scott Uh, he's he's a he's actually a around
Speaker 2: by trade, so we get more into technical on those
Speaker 2: podcasts Gilt.
Speaker 1: Okay, cool Mark, appreciate it, man Mark, borch it, everybody.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Wimbledon podcast on Friday. But hope
Speaker 1: you got something out of this food for thought for
Speaker 1: a bet today, maybe not a bet today, maybe a
Speaker 1: bet for the future in Major League Baseball. Thank you,
Speaker 1: as always for listening.