Big Baseball Fan, Amature Sports Bettor... Is Colorado Worth it Today?

[dicelumpY2005]

Again I will stress how I love the game of baseball, but am unfamiliar with value, etc... Is it worth it to lay $118 on the Rockies today home against Chan Ho Park? Zach Day has been struggling early this year, but I figure that extra inning win last night could possibly spark something for the Rockies? Holliday and Hawpe seem to be hitting the ball well lately... Just curious what all those who I respect on here (i.e. MrBaseball, Moneyline, LegallyBlind, a couple others I cant think of...) think of this game. I only ask because I think Chan Ho Park really sucks...

[Moneyline]

Check my thread [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I just posted a pick on the Rockies in my thread. In summary, I put money on the Rockies @ home @ -118.

BTW, this line has moved almost 20 cents in our favor from last night.

[whipsaw]

I'm not on your list, so I don't know if you care, but I'll give my 2 cents. I'm not huge on laying wood for any team in Colorado's park, but I think you're on the right side of it if you do for this game. Day beat this same team a few days ago, albeit with twelve runs of support. Historically, there's no one in SDG's lineup that really works him out. Chan Ho Park, on the other hand, is bad historically against Colorado, and really doesn't have much offense behind him. I almost like the over on this game better than either side, but with a gun to my head I lay the -120 for Colorado here.

[mrbaseball]

For what it's worth I don't cap games at Coors. Not worth the trouble for me. The park has such a huge effect the players don't really matter all that much. Good pitchers become bad, bad hitters become good and anything can and most likely will happen.

Anytime there is a +150 or more dog at Coors I bet it regardless of anything else. The field has an enormous equalizing effect making no professional team that much of a dog (or favorite).

[dicelumpY2005]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not on your list, so I don't know if you care, but I'll give my 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh..yes, you were one of the "and a few others I can't think of"... LOL! Most of you guys with a regular thread that give analysis seem to do no worse than a very small profit, so I've been riding your picks. I am still learning about the whole +/- EV of the heavy favorites/underdogs, as I have mentioned in an earlier thread...so for now, thanks for YOUR picks! (Hopefully by the all-star game I will feel comfortable putting my own picks/analysis in a thread).

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
The park has such a huge effect the players don't really matter all that much

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something I don't agree with at all. Better players will win more often whether the game is being played on top of a mountain or in a valley below sealevel. Guys like Matt Holliday will hit better than guys like Dave Roberts regardless of the park, and the Padres have a whole lot of Roberts-like non-hitters at the plate.

The one exception that I can see to better players always winning in the long run, is if a team's players are tailored to specifically succeed in a park. This is, in fact, what the Rockies appear to do year after year, which is probably why they tend to have bigger home/road splits than would be expected. So, if anything, Coors will help the Rockies moreso than the underdog.

[bugstud]

then again, the lefty hitters for sd that look like death at home are now in one of the top 2 left hitting parks in the majors...

(this means you brian giles)

[hoyasnaxa]

I agree that better players will win more often, but the park does have an equalizing effect. In response to your argument, Matt Holliday is good at home, and bad on the road. This is true for all the rockies. The Padres stats are deflated, but if this Padres team played in Coors, they would look like a much better offensive team. The Dave Roberts argument is just dumb, he is one hitter.

The Park has an equalizing effect as mrbaseball said. Hitters benefit from playing there, on both sides, and the pitching advantages are mostly negated. That Rockies team is not good, offensively as well as pitching wise. They appear to be good because of the park. If the Padres played there the same would be said of them.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
Better players will win more often whether the game is being played on top of a mountain or in a valley below sealevel

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but it can lessen the effects of better players and makes it harder to gauge the differences (ie handicap) and introduces more randomness and variance and fluke occurances. So since there are 29 other ballparks I feel real comfortable ignoring (for the most part) the 81 games a year played at Coors.

[Moneyline]

I don't want to turn this into a bickerfest, since we obviously disagree, but I'll post once more as apparently my argument is not clear.

[ QUOTE ]
The Dave Roberts argument is just dumb, he is one hitter.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just Roberts who can't hit. Backups like Johnson and Gonzalez, combined with washed up old men like Castilla and Piazza are all poor hitters at this point in their careers regardless of their home stadium. Yes, Roberts is just one batter, but his weakness at the plate is representative of the Padres inability to hit in any ballpark.

[ QUOTE ]
(The Rockies) appear to be good because of the park. If the Padres played there the same would be said of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is claiming that Colorado is a good team here. I'm saying they have an okay lineup that is tailored to succeed in their home park. The latter of those two arguements is evidenced by frequent statements from their front office as well as traditionally large home/road splits.

...I'll also piggyback my response to mrbaseball's post here...

[ QUOTE ]
I agree but it can lessen the effects of better players and makes it harder to gauge the differences (ie handicap) and introduces more randomness and variance and fluke occurances. So since there are 29 other ballparks I feel real comfortable ignoring (for the most part) the 81 games a year played at Coors.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement makes more sense to me. The difficulty in capping games is harder for me too, but I'm still willing to take a stab at it on the assumption its harder for the bookies to set lines as well (I hope [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]). While I don't think advanages are negated for batters or hitters, I believe the extra randomness involved with the park would under normal circumstances cause more short-term variance. However, since the Rockies seem to be built for Coors, I don't think it's the case here.

At any rate, I wish both of you good luck on your picks today.