NCAA Picks Disappoint/Sox, Astros Pay Off
Well, I'm back from the field, so I guess it's time to review the results of my previous wagers. Cal managed to not only fail to cover against UCLA, but lose, 47-40. Meanwhile, Virginia Tech continued their winning ways, but not their pointspread-covering ways, beating Marshall 41-14 as a 34.5 point favorite. This brings my season record down to 8.5-5. (As I have mentioned previously, I only bet a half-unit on the NotreDame-Michigan outcome, hence the 0.5.) I don't have any picks at this point for this week, and since the early games are under way, it looks like I won't be making any. I probably would have taken Virginia Tech again, but their game against Maryland was on Thursday night, and I got back only a few hours ago. (Tech was favored by 10.5, and won 28-9.) I was considering taking Michigan and 3 points at Iowa, but that game is underway already. Currently Iowa leads 14-7. Neither team seems to be able to do much defensively, so this one could come down to the wire. The way things have been going in the Big Ten this year, overtime wouldn't surprise me a bit.
I'm tempted to take Auburn and 6.5 at LSU, and take Alabama giving 3.5 at home against Tennessee. I'm not sure what LSU has done to deserve to be favored by this much, but Auburn hasn't beat anybody particularly good yet either. I really think Alabama has Tennessee outclassed, but these two tend to play each other pretty tough, and alot of these interconference games seem to get decided by a field goal, so I'm not crazy about giving 3.5. Tennessee happens to be riding a 9 out of 10 streak against the Crimson Tide as well, which makes me even less crazy about this one. The streak doesn't know you're smarter than it is.
Speaking of trying to buck streaks, if I'd taken Michigan I'd be going up against Iowa's 22 game home winning streak, currently 3rd longest in the nation. Had I known that a little sooner, I probably would've talked myself out of that one...a little sooner.
I happened to be back from the field for a couple of hours last weekend, and I was fortunate enough to have that time overlap the USC-Notre Dame game, so naturally my eyes were glued to the set. Holy crap that was an exciting game! I have previously mentioned my theory that Notre Dame manages to pull out close games by practicing voodoo against their opposition. Well, USC must've tortured the luck right out of some unfortunate leprachaun, because that was about the most freakishly lucky finish I can remember. When was the last time you saw a drive where the key play was a fumble out of bounds to stop the clock?
Meanwhile, the baseball playoff picture has narrowed down to two teams, and I am pleased to say that I have won money on both of them. I took the White Sox to win the AL pennant at 9-1 back when they got off to their hot start, and I got the Astros to win the NL pennant at 8-1 when they were about a game out of the NL Wild Card lead. Now, lest you mistake me for Nostradamus, let me add that I also took the Orioles to win the AL pennant at 16-1, (same time as I bet on the Sox) the Oakland A's at 8-1 (same time as I bet on the Astros) and the Twins at 15-2 (some time in between, when they had the AL Wild Card lead, as well as the 2nd or 3rd best record in the AL).
Last year I took the Cardnails at 10-1 to win the NL pennant (back when they got off to their red hot start). At the time, the money favorites were the Chicago Cubs and...the Houston Astros. I also took the Marlins at 7-1, and the Giants at 9-1.
Bet alert! The line on 'Bama has dropped to 3, and I'm taking the Tide...apparently bet365.com doesn't want the line to move anymore, because I am paying 23 to win 20, instead of the usual 11 to 10 odds. We'll see if this going against a streak thing bites me in the ass. Meanwhile, the LSU-Auburn line has dropped to 6...I'm still tempted to take Auburn--on the other hand, I see this as a revenge game for LSU (they lost 10-9 last year, covering the 1.5 point spread, & I won, as I mentioned, or rather Frank the Bookie mentioned in my Two Men Out blog, www.twomenout.blogspot.com) and I still want to see how Auburn does against a good team.
....(just woke up...I'll continue blogging...and yes, the above was posted prior to the Alabama game starting)--
Well, I'm glad I waited for the spread to drop.--'Bama wins, 6-3. My first push of the year. Meanwhile, Michigan broke Iowa's 22 game home winning streak, winning 23-20 in OT. If you're not skimming this you'll know that I didn't quite predict this, but I did mention the possibility....(I'm not saying you should be impressed--100,000 Michigan fans (sheep) probably figured out the same thing, & I figured it wouldn't happen once the teams threw some field goals into the mix, but if you want to be impressed that's your business.)
I'm not betting on the outcome of the World Series, so I don't see why you should be interested in my pick, but here it is--Sox in six. Nice ring to it, eh? Sox in six? From a betting perspective I think the Sox should be favored, but not by as much as the odds said. I just checked them, but I don't remember the exact odds, and now the betting is closed, so the odds aren't posted. (Yes, I woke up for the game, as you may have deduced.)
Just checked the Auburn-LSU score--LSU 7-0 in the 2nd qtr...glad I sat that one out--so far...
I wasn't planning on betting on the World Series at all, but I've already won one bet--I took the Sox to be the first team to score, and they got a home run in the bottom of the first, just ahead of the Astros' home run in the top of the 2nd. The Astros were favored here--(you had to bet 27 to win 20 on them, and 21 to win 20 on the Sox), I suppose because Houston got to bat first. They didn't close out the betting until the game had started, and I got my bet in with two outs in the top of the first, so I figured that gave me a bit of an edge. The Sox also have more home run pop, and I've seen older pitchers get off to alot of slow starts in the past as well, including Roger Clemens. Now, Jose Contreras is no sping chicken either, (34, but these Cubans tend to lie baout their ages--when Rey Ordonez was playing shortstop for the Mets his age was probably farther off than the ages of the cast of 90210) but I figure that a slow start is probably that much more likely for pitchers coming up from the gulf coast to play up in the brisk weather off Lake Michigan. (I haven't checked the weather report, but it looks brisk.) Anyway, I hadn't factored in the weather before I placed the bet...or that Roger has a sore leg...end of two the Sox lead 3-1.
Bottom of the 6th, Sox lead 4-3. I took a break to call home and check the local weather. West Michigan is cold and rainy. Chicago doesn't look rainy, but I think I could see a batters breath during a close-up....In the game I didn't take, Auburn has taken the lead, 10-7--oops, LSU just scored, and it's 14-10. Well, Auburn still is beating the spread....
Roger Clemens only pitched two innings (54 pitches tho') and left with a sore hamstring, which leads me to the main reason I picked the Sox. Their starting pitchers threw four complete games in a row against the Angels, and while you won't catch me arguing that the Sox starters are more talented than the Astro starters, I really think that they are on right now. During this paragraph Contreras hit two batters and had to rely on some fancy glovework to get out of the inning without any runs scored, but he still has gone 7 innings, so even if the Astros find a way to win this one I think their tired pitchers will have a hard time keeping up with the well rested White Sox staff.
Contreras just gave up a double to start the eighth, and has been pulled. I actually thought they pulled Contreras last inning, and had to go back and edit that last paragraph. I need to stop blogging and watch the damn game!
Bottom of the 8th, Podsednik just tripled in a run, 5-3 Sox. The Astros look flat. I'm not sure what it is. Both teams have had alot of runners on and have had alot of missed opportunities, but the Sox seem scrappy, like they are just a break away from busting this game wide open, while the Astros seem to be making alot of mental mistakes. Maybe it's the difference between having the lead or playing catch up. Maybe it's the energetic hometown fans. Tonight the Astros jsut didn't look like they belonged in the World Series. Hmmm...make that Sox in five!
(Game 1 just ended, 5-3.)
I try not to bet my local biases, but I figure I ought to anounce them, on the off chance that you're out there betting your kid's college fund, so here goes. After the Tigers the White Sox are the most local team to me, or were growing up, (right now I'm in Korea, so the Unicorns or the Wyverns are probably the local team--whichever team is in Seoul, I guess) and they are my fourth or fifth favorite team, after the Tigers, Mets, Red Sox, and maybe the Giants. I was going to put them behind "whoever is playing the Yankees" but since I wasn't pulling for the Angels against the Sox I suppose that that isn't quite true. (Though when they were playing the Sox, they were playing the Sox, not the Yankees.) The first major league game I ever attended was at old Comiskey Park. The Sox lost to the Brewers, 8-0.
I learned a valuable lesson that day at Old Comiskey...the White Sox suck--
Think of the valuable insights I could have gleaned from a trip to Wrigley....
This is fun...drinking does kill the pain...
Oh yeah, I was nine...never mind--
Two years ago, I attended a Tigers game at Comerica Park, when they were sucking at record levels. I got into the game for free, got a free Alan Trammel bobblehead, and a free Tigers T-shirt.
And I learned a valuable lesson...
Oh yeah, I parked in the ramp at Greektown Casino and got my parking validated in the casino. So parking was free too. I've always liked the Giants better than the A's, but if the rumors I've heard about the cheap seats at A's games are true I'd probably have to convert if I ever moved out there. Apparently they are CHEAP.
From what I've heard though there is no rivalry to speak of between Giants and A's fans. People are too laid back out there. There's not really a rivalry between White Sox and Cubs fans either. Sox fans hate the Cubs, but Cub fans don't have the common decency to hate them back. They're just too perpetually, and annoyingly cheerful, which incidentally is why the Sox fans can't stand them. If you want to see a real rivalry of fans whose teams almost never play a meaningful game against each other you must go east, young man. Mets fans and Yankee fans hate each other, and they don't need interleague play to help them realize this, though it doesn't hurt either. Mets fans hate Yankee fans partly out of jealousy. Imagine how the White Sox fans would feel if the Cubs had won 26 World Series. And Yankee fans are annoying too, though in a decidedly different way than Cub fans. Even if you hate the Cubs you have to take a little break to feel sorry for them. Yankee fans hate the Mets because they can't help it. There are alot of one sided rivalries out there where one side just sort of shrugs off the other. Michigan-Minnesota is usually a good example. Michigan doesn't hate Minnesota. They don't have time. They expect to beat Minnesota, they beat Minnesota, they move on. Michigan hates Ohio State. I don't know if it's because everything is just a bit more intense on the East Coast, or what, but Yankee fans are different. Yankee fans don't need a reason. They hate EVERYBODY. Yankee fans are like half-starved pit bulls.
You don't have to like it when they bite off your arm, but you shouldn't be surprised either.
Anyway, I picked the Sox because of their pitching, not because I'm a homer. I said Sox in six because I think the Astros pitching ought to be able to get them a couple. Really with piching like this it's impossible to say how this series will go. Both teams have pitchers that can carry them, so it's kind of like hockey where anyone can win if they have the hot goalie. It just takes three or four hot goalies here. Basically I think the Sox have hotter goalies. It bugs me that most of the heads on ESPN last night picked the Sox in six as well, but how original can you be with these things anyway?
Now that the Astros may have to go with an old guy with a bum hammy in game five I'm liking their chances even less. Since I've been in the field I didn't know the Astros had kept a four man rotation either. It's not that I don't think ummm...Brandon Backe is any good, it's that I don't know who he is. Did I get his name right? Seriously, though, he's 10-8 with a 4.76 ERA (thank you internet) and seriously, I did not know who he was. But now I do. (Thank you internet.) I think a Clemes-Pettitte-Oswalt rotation would be much sexier, especially if Clemens comes across with some Schillingesque heroics. I wouldn't be surprised to see it, but I still think Chicago's four studs beat Houston's three. Their ERA's aren't as low, but remember, they don't get to pitch to a pitcher 3 or 4 times a game. I think the AL is superior to the NL overall right now as well, an opinion i did pick up from ESPN a couple of years ago, though I think it is even more true now.
I need to end this post, so a couple of closing thoughts. About the 7th or 8th inning they showed a map of Chicago, dividing the North Side from the South Side. The North Side was a warm, cheery shade of blue (for the Cubs) while the South Side was sort of a dingy grey (for the White Sox). I thought that black would've been alot sharper, but the grey somehow seemed fitting, I suppose because it was drab and dreary, if not downright grim....
The other graphics I noticed were the ones for the starting lineups. They put little flags next to all the batters names, showing where they were from. Basically they showed a bunch of little American flags, acouple of little Dominican Republic flags, and a Japanese flag. My question is this. If Contreras pitches game five in Houston will they put up a little Cuban flag next to him in the lineup? My guess is they will not. My gut tells me that there is some level where this would be the political equivalent of showing Janet Jackson's nipple at halftime during the Super Bowl. If anyone is reading this, watch for this. I want to know if MLB has a media embargo on Cuba....
Auburn lost but covered, 20-17 in OT. I still say that the key to my success, such as it is, is the games I don't pick. Season: 8.5-5-1
--LATER
I'm tempted to take Auburn and 6.5 at LSU, and take Alabama giving 3.5 at home against Tennessee. I'm not sure what LSU has done to deserve to be favored by this much, but Auburn hasn't beat anybody particularly good yet either. I really think Alabama has Tennessee outclassed, but these two tend to play each other pretty tough, and alot of these interconference games seem to get decided by a field goal, so I'm not crazy about giving 3.5. Tennessee happens to be riding a 9 out of 10 streak against the Crimson Tide as well, which makes me even less crazy about this one. The streak doesn't know you're smarter than it is.
Speaking of trying to buck streaks, if I'd taken Michigan I'd be going up against Iowa's 22 game home winning streak, currently 3rd longest in the nation. Had I known that a little sooner, I probably would've talked myself out of that one...a little sooner.
I happened to be back from the field for a couple of hours last weekend, and I was fortunate enough to have that time overlap the USC-Notre Dame game, so naturally my eyes were glued to the set. Holy crap that was an exciting game! I have previously mentioned my theory that Notre Dame manages to pull out close games by practicing voodoo against their opposition. Well, USC must've tortured the luck right out of some unfortunate leprachaun, because that was about the most freakishly lucky finish I can remember. When was the last time you saw a drive where the key play was a fumble out of bounds to stop the clock?
Meanwhile, the baseball playoff picture has narrowed down to two teams, and I am pleased to say that I have won money on both of them. I took the White Sox to win the AL pennant at 9-1 back when they got off to their hot start, and I got the Astros to win the NL pennant at 8-1 when they were about a game out of the NL Wild Card lead. Now, lest you mistake me for Nostradamus, let me add that I also took the Orioles to win the AL pennant at 16-1, (same time as I bet on the Sox) the Oakland A's at 8-1 (same time as I bet on the Astros) and the Twins at 15-2 (some time in between, when they had the AL Wild Card lead, as well as the 2nd or 3rd best record in the AL).
Last year I took the Cardnails at 10-1 to win the NL pennant (back when they got off to their red hot start). At the time, the money favorites were the Chicago Cubs and...the Houston Astros. I also took the Marlins at 7-1, and the Giants at 9-1.
Bet alert! The line on 'Bama has dropped to 3, and I'm taking the Tide...apparently bet365.com doesn't want the line to move anymore, because I am paying 23 to win 20, instead of the usual 11 to 10 odds. We'll see if this going against a streak thing bites me in the ass. Meanwhile, the LSU-Auburn line has dropped to 6...I'm still tempted to take Auburn--on the other hand, I see this as a revenge game for LSU (they lost 10-9 last year, covering the 1.5 point spread, & I won, as I mentioned, or rather Frank the Bookie mentioned in my Two Men Out blog, www.twomenout.blogspot.com) and I still want to see how Auburn does against a good team.
....(just woke up...I'll continue blogging...and yes, the above was posted prior to the Alabama game starting)--
Well, I'm glad I waited for the spread to drop.--'Bama wins, 6-3. My first push of the year. Meanwhile, Michigan broke Iowa's 22 game home winning streak, winning 23-20 in OT. If you're not skimming this you'll know that I didn't quite predict this, but I did mention the possibility....(I'm not saying you should be impressed--100,000 Michigan fans (sheep) probably figured out the same thing, & I figured it wouldn't happen once the teams threw some field goals into the mix, but if you want to be impressed that's your business.)
I'm not betting on the outcome of the World Series, so I don't see why you should be interested in my pick, but here it is--Sox in six. Nice ring to it, eh? Sox in six? From a betting perspective I think the Sox should be favored, but not by as much as the odds said. I just checked them, but I don't remember the exact odds, and now the betting is closed, so the odds aren't posted. (Yes, I woke up for the game, as you may have deduced.)
Just checked the Auburn-LSU score--LSU 7-0 in the 2nd qtr...glad I sat that one out--so far...
I wasn't planning on betting on the World Series at all, but I've already won one bet--I took the Sox to be the first team to score, and they got a home run in the bottom of the first, just ahead of the Astros' home run in the top of the 2nd. The Astros were favored here--(you had to bet 27 to win 20 on them, and 21 to win 20 on the Sox), I suppose because Houston got to bat first. They didn't close out the betting until the game had started, and I got my bet in with two outs in the top of the first, so I figured that gave me a bit of an edge. The Sox also have more home run pop, and I've seen older pitchers get off to alot of slow starts in the past as well, including Roger Clemens. Now, Jose Contreras is no sping chicken either, (34, but these Cubans tend to lie baout their ages--when Rey Ordonez was playing shortstop for the Mets his age was probably farther off than the ages of the cast of 90210) but I figure that a slow start is probably that much more likely for pitchers coming up from the gulf coast to play up in the brisk weather off Lake Michigan. (I haven't checked the weather report, but it looks brisk.) Anyway, I hadn't factored in the weather before I placed the bet...or that Roger has a sore leg...end of two the Sox lead 3-1.
Bottom of the 6th, Sox lead 4-3. I took a break to call home and check the local weather. West Michigan is cold and rainy. Chicago doesn't look rainy, but I think I could see a batters breath during a close-up....In the game I didn't take, Auburn has taken the lead, 10-7--oops, LSU just scored, and it's 14-10. Well, Auburn still is beating the spread....
Roger Clemens only pitched two innings (54 pitches tho') and left with a sore hamstring, which leads me to the main reason I picked the Sox. Their starting pitchers threw four complete games in a row against the Angels, and while you won't catch me arguing that the Sox starters are more talented than the Astro starters, I really think that they are on right now. During this paragraph Contreras hit two batters and had to rely on some fancy glovework to get out of the inning without any runs scored, but he still has gone 7 innings, so even if the Astros find a way to win this one I think their tired pitchers will have a hard time keeping up with the well rested White Sox staff.
Contreras just gave up a double to start the eighth, and has been pulled. I actually thought they pulled Contreras last inning, and had to go back and edit that last paragraph. I need to stop blogging and watch the damn game!
Bottom of the 8th, Podsednik just tripled in a run, 5-3 Sox. The Astros look flat. I'm not sure what it is. Both teams have had alot of runners on and have had alot of missed opportunities, but the Sox seem scrappy, like they are just a break away from busting this game wide open, while the Astros seem to be making alot of mental mistakes. Maybe it's the difference between having the lead or playing catch up. Maybe it's the energetic hometown fans. Tonight the Astros jsut didn't look like they belonged in the World Series. Hmmm...make that Sox in five!
(Game 1 just ended, 5-3.)
I try not to bet my local biases, but I figure I ought to anounce them, on the off chance that you're out there betting your kid's college fund, so here goes. After the Tigers the White Sox are the most local team to me, or were growing up, (right now I'm in Korea, so the Unicorns or the Wyverns are probably the local team--whichever team is in Seoul, I guess) and they are my fourth or fifth favorite team, after the Tigers, Mets, Red Sox, and maybe the Giants. I was going to put them behind "whoever is playing the Yankees" but since I wasn't pulling for the Angels against the Sox I suppose that that isn't quite true. (Though when they were playing the Sox, they were playing the Sox, not the Yankees.) The first major league game I ever attended was at old Comiskey Park. The Sox lost to the Brewers, 8-0.
I learned a valuable lesson that day at Old Comiskey...the White Sox suck--
Think of the valuable insights I could have gleaned from a trip to Wrigley....
This is fun...drinking does kill the pain...
Oh yeah, I was nine...never mind--
Two years ago, I attended a Tigers game at Comerica Park, when they were sucking at record levels. I got into the game for free, got a free Alan Trammel bobblehead, and a free Tigers T-shirt.
And I learned a valuable lesson...
Oh yeah, I parked in the ramp at Greektown Casino and got my parking validated in the casino. So parking was free too. I've always liked the Giants better than the A's, but if the rumors I've heard about the cheap seats at A's games are true I'd probably have to convert if I ever moved out there. Apparently they are CHEAP.
From what I've heard though there is no rivalry to speak of between Giants and A's fans. People are too laid back out there. There's not really a rivalry between White Sox and Cubs fans either. Sox fans hate the Cubs, but Cub fans don't have the common decency to hate them back. They're just too perpetually, and annoyingly cheerful, which incidentally is why the Sox fans can't stand them. If you want to see a real rivalry of fans whose teams almost never play a meaningful game against each other you must go east, young man. Mets fans and Yankee fans hate each other, and they don't need interleague play to help them realize this, though it doesn't hurt either. Mets fans hate Yankee fans partly out of jealousy. Imagine how the White Sox fans would feel if the Cubs had won 26 World Series. And Yankee fans are annoying too, though in a decidedly different way than Cub fans. Even if you hate the Cubs you have to take a little break to feel sorry for them. Yankee fans hate the Mets because they can't help it. There are alot of one sided rivalries out there where one side just sort of shrugs off the other. Michigan-Minnesota is usually a good example. Michigan doesn't hate Minnesota. They don't have time. They expect to beat Minnesota, they beat Minnesota, they move on. Michigan hates Ohio State. I don't know if it's because everything is just a bit more intense on the East Coast, or what, but Yankee fans are different. Yankee fans don't need a reason. They hate EVERYBODY. Yankee fans are like half-starved pit bulls.
You don't have to like it when they bite off your arm, but you shouldn't be surprised either.
Anyway, I picked the Sox because of their pitching, not because I'm a homer. I said Sox in six because I think the Astros pitching ought to be able to get them a couple. Really with piching like this it's impossible to say how this series will go. Both teams have pitchers that can carry them, so it's kind of like hockey where anyone can win if they have the hot goalie. It just takes three or four hot goalies here. Basically I think the Sox have hotter goalies. It bugs me that most of the heads on ESPN last night picked the Sox in six as well, but how original can you be with these things anyway?
Now that the Astros may have to go with an old guy with a bum hammy in game five I'm liking their chances even less. Since I've been in the field I didn't know the Astros had kept a four man rotation either. It's not that I don't think ummm...Brandon Backe is any good, it's that I don't know who he is. Did I get his name right? Seriously, though, he's 10-8 with a 4.76 ERA (thank you internet) and seriously, I did not know who he was. But now I do. (Thank you internet.) I think a Clemes-Pettitte-Oswalt rotation would be much sexier, especially if Clemens comes across with some Schillingesque heroics. I wouldn't be surprised to see it, but I still think Chicago's four studs beat Houston's three. Their ERA's aren't as low, but remember, they don't get to pitch to a pitcher 3 or 4 times a game. I think the AL is superior to the NL overall right now as well, an opinion i did pick up from ESPN a couple of years ago, though I think it is even more true now.
I need to end this post, so a couple of closing thoughts. About the 7th or 8th inning they showed a map of Chicago, dividing the North Side from the South Side. The North Side was a warm, cheery shade of blue (for the Cubs) while the South Side was sort of a dingy grey (for the White Sox). I thought that black would've been alot sharper, but the grey somehow seemed fitting, I suppose because it was drab and dreary, if not downright grim....
The other graphics I noticed were the ones for the starting lineups. They put little flags next to all the batters names, showing where they were from. Basically they showed a bunch of little American flags, acouple of little Dominican Republic flags, and a Japanese flag. My question is this. If Contreras pitches game five in Houston will they put up a little Cuban flag next to him in the lineup? My guess is they will not. My gut tells me that there is some level where this would be the political equivalent of showing Janet Jackson's nipple at halftime during the Super Bowl. If anyone is reading this, watch for this. I want to know if MLB has a media embargo on Cuba....
Auburn lost but covered, 20-17 in OT. I still say that the key to my success, such as it is, is the games I don't pick. Season: 8.5-5-1
--LATER
posted by roQQ | 9:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home