When to Specify Pitchers in Betting Baseball
Joe Duffy (www.godspicks.com)
Most gamblers always specify pitchers when making a
baseball bet. As a point of fact, injudiciously
many handicappers make their bets based almost exclusively on starting pitchers. Few articles we’ve ever written have gotten
as much response along the lines of “eye opening” in many cases even years
later, than our “Clichés
about Pitching and Defense are Offensive” essay.
We document the truth that many would consider
sacrilegious—that so many gamblers overvalue pitching, oblivious to how much
the odds have starting pitching built in. Before your blood boils, if you never
read said column, go to the archives at JoeDuffy.net and read it
with an open mind. Don’t judge right
away. Track the theories for a few months and even years, as many of our
converts have. We look forward to your
feedback.
Remember though, the key in baseball betting is not
winning percentage. Chalk addicts can
hit 60 percent of their plays and lose money, while dog specialists (ahem) can
hit 45 percent of their plays and win.
Knowledge and proper management of probability/risk ratio is what
baseball handicapping is all about.
A major danger in designating pitchers is if a great deal
of your handicapping has to do with the teams involved, you could get screwed
by a last minute scratch pitcher. A
large percentage of changed hurlers involve a pitcher getting scratched in
warm-ups, where there is little time to change a bet.
A last minute pitching change may not change how you feel on the game, but it
screws you out of a play.
The 2006 NY Yankees have had their share of injuries. Perhaps you are waiting on them to get 100
percent healthy among their starting eight and ride them during an anticipated
winning streak. Or say the Pirates have
an on base percentage of .398 over their last seven games. They face a Met team that is hitting .208
their last seven games with an on base percentage of just .252 and their
overused and injury riddled bullpen is struggling as well.
Furthermore the game is in
where in location comparison (home team’s home stats, road team’s road stats)
the Pirates are excelling. Yet based on the fact Pedro Martinez is pitching for
the Mets,
juice) is a 160 dog.
The square player may actually believe this would be a
rare case in which not listing
would be a good play, because if he’s scratched, it would increase the Pirates
chance of winning.
Perhaps, but sharp players only wonder would it improve the
probability/risk ratio?
The probability/risk ratio says the Pirates would have to
have at least a 38 percent chance of winning (at plus-160) to make it a good
percentage play. You handicap they have
a 52 percent for a +14 percent net. Hence
it’s a good bet.
Your selection is in no way going against
but since the odds and hence the probability/risk ratio is based on
pitching, this is a circumstance in which we would specify we are going against
Why? Alay Soler becomes the Mets
pitcher and it increases our chances of winning only to 57 percent, because it
was offensive, momentum and bullpen factors behind our original play. But the
new pitching matchup makes
a 145 favorite, which requires a 59.2 winning percentage. You’ve only handicapped
to have a 57 percent chance, so your probability/risk ratio is a negative 2.7
percent. Hence going with
is a bad bet.
Most gamblers who don’t blindly always delineate pitchers
subscribe to what seem like obvious rules of thumb:
·
If your bet is based predominately on going
against or for one pitcher, specify only that pitcher
·
If your bet is based on a combination and
preponderance of going for one and against the other pitcher, specify both
·
If your bet has minimal pitching advantage but
is based on one team having a huge edge, specify neither pitcher
But the flaw in that thinking is it overlooks our favorite
circumstance:
·
Picking with a team despite having a pitching
disadvantage and hence disproportionately beneficial odds (example as above: betting
the hot, much better-at-home Pirates against the struggling Mets with
Some may think that it’s a good idea to cover your assets
and always specify pitchers based on what we said. Nope.
Anytime we are picking team against team and it does not involve picking
against a star pitcher or picking with a stiff pitcher, a scratch is unlikely
to drastically change the probability/risk ratio, so we don’t specify starters.
A devil’s advocate may point out what if you are picking
with Braves who have beneficial odds thanks to Jorge Sosa pitching, but he is
scratched. John Smoltz
is next in line and he starts. The risk
is we go from picking a huge dog to a huge favorite by not specifying pitchers.
The reason we are more often willing to take that
particular risk is managers are much more cautious with their star pitchers and
an undisputed ace isn’t as likely to be thrown in on a moment’s notice. But we still acknowledge that
probability/risk ratio potential pitfall. Hence, one has to strongly consider
the likely starters for each team in the event of a scratch pitcher.
Thankfully scratch pitchers are not extremely common and
over a long season specifying and not specifying pitchers is very doubtful to
make the difference in a winning and losing season. However we accurately preach every small edge
adds up, so don’t underestimate the importance of when and when not to check
and uncheck one or both starters.
Overlooking the probability/risk ratio involved is a major
facet that keeps square players subsidizing the books for the rest of us.
The famed
scorephone Tailgate Party goes high tech this football season at JoeDuffy.net We start the
week out with advanced news and notes from Joe Duffy of Godspicks.com , top computer trends from forensic handicapper Stevie Vincent of KnockoutPicks.com, live weather radar,
sportsbook contests, free sports service picks, late breaking injuries on game
day, and more to “beat the screen” on the sports information superhighway at JoeDuffy.net