Sweet!!

Before the season started I put down 1k on the Sox to win the series. I figured that 30-1 was a nice price, comin off a 93 loss season, so it was a nice payoff, hey hey.

Quote: soxfan

Before the season started I put down 1k on the Sox to win the series. I figured that 30-1 was a nice price, comin off a 93 loss season, so it was a nice payoff, hey hey.

Congrats on the good variance, Sox!

Always a little sweeter when a team you love makes you a pile of cash. Congrats man.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Congrats on the good variance, Sox!

Thanks, just goes to show ya that even the Vegas wiseguys don't always get it right. Heck, they had the Blue Jays as odds on favorites to win it all, hey hey.

Lets Go Mets :)

Wow nice win!

Quote: soxfan

Before the season started I put down 1k on the Sox to win the series. I figured that 30-1 was a nice price, comin off a 93 loss season, so it was a nice payoff, hey hey.

post up a pic of that ticket its always nice to see

Quote: AxelWolf

post up a pic of that ticket its always nice to see

+1 Or as Ronald Reagan would say, "Trust but verify"

Quote: AxelWolf

post up a pic of that ticket its always nice to see

lol I was thinking the same thing. I believe there was a bet but it was probably $100.

Quote: soxfan

Thanks, just goes to show ya that even the Vegas wiseguys don't always get it right. Heck, they had the Blue Jays as odds on favorites to win it all, hey hey.

Hey hey. When Farrell went over to the Sox in the off season, the way it went down made alot of new enemies of Boston here near Toronto. When I watched the world series, it became very clear as to what makes a winning team, that the Blue Jays never had: solid and reliable starting pitching and team leadership. When the Jays picked up Johnson, Dickey, and Buehrle, they got one proven starter in Buehrle and variables in Johnson and Dickey. It didn't help that 3/5 of the rotation were awful and were playing with injuries. But the lack of leadership was really what did the Jays in. Bautista is a great player, but he doesn't lead. There is no Pedroia or Ortiz on that team.

And the Red Sox clicked too at the right time. Good for them.

Yeah, pic of the ticket or it didn't happen :)

Bovada's opening line on the Sox was 25-1.

Quote: boymimbo

Hey hey. When Farrell went over to the Sox in the off season, the way it went down made alot of new enemies of Boston here near Toronto. When I watched the world series, it became very clear as to what makes a winning team, that the Blue Jays never had: solid and reliable starting pitching and team leadership. When the Jays picked up Johnson, Dickey, and Buehrle, they got one proven starter in Buehrle and variables in Johnson and Dickey. It didn't help that 3/5 of the rotation were awful and were playing with injuries. But the lack of leadership was really what did the Jays in. Bautista is a great player, but he doesn't lead. There is no Pedroia or Ortiz on that team.

And the Red Sox clicked too at the right time. Good for them.

I call bullshit on the "Team Leadership" aspect of it. It counts for something, but a tiny, TINY bit compared to how much it's talked up by commentators. If you have good players who play well, you win. If you win you have "good chemistry" because everyone's happy! Because you're winning! It's easy to be a "leader" when you're winning.

Were Ortiz and Pedroia slacking off on their leadership duties last season? Nah, the Sox just didn't have as many good players and had a lot of slump years. When you're losing it's all bad chemistry and headcases. Because you're losing, and losing sucks.

Anyway, my 2 cents on "leadership" and "chemistry" in sports. Overrated factor to bottom line performance.

I'm on the fence for this. Is there a team synergy that exists that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Who knows. The thing is that the comments that team chemistry means nothing and that management means nothing usually comes from the commentators who have not been in the show. Commentators who have played in the majors constantly and consistently chalk up winning to management style at some point.

But like dice infleuncing, there is no data to back up what I claim. I think that leadership does play a role.

Quote: boymimbo

I'm on the fence for this. Is there a team synergy that exists that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Who knows. The thing is that the comments that team chemistry means nothing and that management means nothing usually comes from the commentators who have not been in the show. Commentators who have played in the majors constantly and consistently chalk up winning to management style at some point.

But like dice infleuncing, there is no data to back up what I claim. I think that leadership does play a role.

You're absolutely right on the lack of hard data to back up any claims. It's all supposition. Former pro sports players are not known for their brains, I'll say that much.

I think chemistry and synergy have more actual effect in basketball and football, where there is more teamwork on every single play. The O-Line has to block the right people and open the right lanes, and the running back has to get the handoff cleanly, QBs and WRs have to be on the same page with routes etc etc.

With baseball it's very much a "sum of the parts" thing. One pitcher vs. one hitter, playing their own little game. You put the ball in play, and then team defense comes into play a tiny bit. But for the most part, an excellent defensive shortstop or CF can play a great game and get recognition for his skills with garbage players all around him. One amazing hitter can almost carry a team of mediocre players just by consistently mashing. In basketball/football it's harder to stand out individually; at least harder to make an impact on the "bottom line" of the game without a lot of supporting cast. Adrian Peterson notwithstanding...