Frankel sheet?

[Rich Curtis]

And now one of my very favorite people (he is probably your source, too) is private messaging me an actual count that shows your number to be right and my number wrong. But my number has so much published support that at this point I don\'t know WTF the correct number is. In other words, this game is being played under protest.

[P-Dub]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That 2003 Marlins team had a lot of talent.
>
>
> Every team that makes the World Series has a lot
> of talent, some considerably more than others.
> The Marlins started 16-22, before McKeon took
> over, survived injuries to key players during the
> regular season, and won the Series as the NL wild
> card over a team that was playing in its 6th
> series in eight years.


That Marlins roster was loaded with talent. It was a marginal upset, but not even close to the historical upsets in other World Series.

[moosepalm]

P-Dub Wrote:

>
> That Marlins roster was loaded with talent. It was
> a marginal upset, but not even close to the
> historical upsets in other World Series.


Well, P-Dub, this is probably a little more than you say \"tomato\" and I say \"toe-mah-to.\"  Since it\'s a horse racing board, we shouldn\'t prolong this, but I will use a horse racing analogy.  Since we both agree that the Marlins were a talented team, the question is, how conclusive is that?  In the Breeders Cup Classic there will be a solid favorite who is upset by a longer-priced horse.  Was the winner talented?  Of course, but it was still an upset.  Talent doesn\'t preclude that.  It\'s a relative proposition.

In the beginning of the season, the Marlins were the eleventh longest shot in the National League to win the World Series, per the only pre-season odds report I could find.  In July, the only report I could find was an ESPN listing the odds for the top ten teams to win the Series. The Marlins were not mentioned.  I could not find any odds specific to the series.  As far as rankings of Series\' upsets, I only found one, by Fox Sports.  The \'03 series was ranked tenth on the all time list.

But, yes we do agree they were talented.

[P-Dub]

Fair enough.

[TGJB]

My point wasn\'t that the winning team wasn\'t good or that it was an upset, but that they won despite the other team being better. The reason I use 1960 as the classic example is because the Yanks outscored the Pirates by about 30 runs (literally), but lost 4 one run games and the series. I wouldn\'t be surprised if the Yanks set the record for runs scored.

The best team (or horse) doesn\'t always win.

[phil23]

\"but that\'s the way to bet them\" (ceteris paribus)

[SoCalMan2]

I was too young to be paying attention to betting lines in 1969, but, I thought the Mets were a big underdog in the 1969 world series from the betting standpoint, no?  I thought that Oriole team was supposed to be monstrous (great pitching staff, Boog Powel, Frank and Brooks Robinson, earl weaver, etc) and the Mets had been perceived to have been fluky to beat a very strong Braves squad (I thought the Mets were big underdogs against the Braves too, no?).  Am just curious, if the Mets were so dominant so late in the season, shouldn\'t the betting lines have reflected that?  Anybody know what the odds were in 1969 at the all star break and the end of the season for the mets to go all the way?  Am talking about lines that people could actually bet....not some sportswriter just spouting a number that is his (can\'t imagine there were any female sportswriters talking about betting lines in 1969) best guess.  If the Orioles really had no chance and the Mets were a big price, some people must have made some really easy money back then. In 1979, I cashed big time on the Pirates winning the world series against a very hyped Oriole squad.