The Ultimate Way to Judge the AL West

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jan 4, 2006 5:31 AM PST Comment 10 comments

Odds to win the World Series as of today...

So Cal Angels 9:1
Oakland Athletics 10:1
Texas Rangers 45:1
Seattle Mariners 80:1

So if you bet on the A's and put down a dollar and they win, you get back 10 dollars.

Top three rankings for the American League you ask?

New York Skanks 4:1
Boston Red Sux 6:1
Chicago White Socks 8:1

So the A's you can say are about 1-4 win underdogs to the Angels for the division, and about 3-7 win underdogs to the Red Sux for the wild card.

If you can find an in-efficiency in gambling, then you can take it to the BANK !

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

ultamite...?

...is that like dynamite?

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 5:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

As you can tell, I ain't no spelling bee champ!

Could I please get the word of origin though?

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jan 4, 2006 5:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ask and you shall receive

[Latin ultimtus, past participle of ultimre, to come to an end, from ultimus, last, superlative of *ulter, on the other side. See al-1 in Indo-European Roots.]

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 7:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The other consideration

we all have to make is the total influx of players from the NL.

A's got 3 players from the NL; Rangers got 2 starting pitchers from the NL; Angels exchanged veteran bodies from the NL; Red Sox and Blue Jays got starting pitchers from the NL-- so did the White Sox.Mariners got a player from Japan.

Overall there has been a bit of a drain from one league to the other-- particularly on the mound-- that may make it a bit tougher for every team in the league to compete this year. I'd say it's no more than 1-2 wins overall per team, but that could still be significant.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jan 4, 2006 8:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I always though that ...

... the ultimate way to judge the AL West was by who won the division by the end of the season.

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 4, 2006 10:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thats no fun though

And Baseball Prospectus says that Division Championships are overrated and a useless stat.

Knowledge is Power, Ignorance is Bliss. But I have Blissful Power, because I have a lot of knowledge, I just forgot it all

by Zonis on Jan 4, 2006 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Inefficiency?

Red Sox at 6:1 -- no CF, no SS, depending on two "aces" who are very injury-prone (one of whom is close to 40 and has a questionable ankle), Manny is still demanding a trade... Why are the Red Sox sitting at 6:1?

I can understand an "undervalued" stock, or an "undervalued" player (a player with good base skills but no stats), but an "undervalued" team? Boston is NOT the second-best team in the AL right now. It's not like they can just build a star CF out of spare parts -- they're going to start next season with Kevin Youklis (bad), Joey Gathright (worse) and Alex Cora (worstest) in their starting lineup. No lineup with three holes like that can stand up to the ChiSox or A's... And if they somehow manage to get Tejada, it'll mean they've dealt Manny.

Boston has $$$$$ and they won a few years ago -- since when does that mean they'll be good next year... If that were the case, then the Mets must have been good in 2002, right? I mean they won the World Series in 2000 and had a lot of money. Oh wait, they finished 75-86, good for last place in the NL East. Teams can fall flat on their face after winning a championship -- looks like that's what Boston's doing to me. I think Vegas is overrating Boston.

by Uncle Charlie on Jan 4, 2006 10:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

But it doesn't matter to Vegas much how likely the Red Sox are to win it all. What matters is what people think. The Sox won it all in 2004, and were still very good in 2005. Most people don't understand how the roster moves will affect the team going forward, so they're willing to bet on them at these crummy odds.

Vegas wants to give the worst payoff odds possible to still get the volume of bets - not to accurately reflect likelihood of winning.

It's the science of perception, and they're very good at it. How it maps to reality is how much the general public's perceptions are true. Which is to say, not tremendously well.

by kirbyk on Jan 4, 2006 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When did the RedSox acquire Gathright?

Knowledge is Power, Ignorance is Bliss. But I have Blissful Power, because I have a lot of knowledge, I just forgot it all

by Zonis on Jan 4, 2006 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

check on tradesports

try http://www.tradesports.com

under "2006 World Series Outright Winner" the yanks are at the top at around 15.5/100.
you can get the a's and blue jays for like 5 and the angels and indians for around 6.

in other stuff, right now they have the colts at 47/100 (which seems way too high considering the panthers, steelers, giants, bucs, bengals and skins all at 2-5/100)
right now they have the trojans at 67 and texas at 33, which sounds about right.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Jan 4, 2006 3:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs