General Sports Talk

Quote: DRich

Quote: odiousgambit

Just noticed that for the Purdue/Ohio State game I can get a "no overtime" bet for +2200. Seems like a lot.

college games don't much go into overtime? Or is this a just function of big point spread and big O/U for NFL games too? The point spread is 20.5 and the O/U 62.5 for that game
link to original post

I would think the NO OVERTIME bet would be -2200 not +2200. I would bet most of my net worth on +2200 for no overtime. I would not be shocked if it is a close game.
link to original post

I went back and posted the exact bet, "will the game go into overtime?" , YES being the bet that pays +2200. I screwed up what I first wrote, got it backwards. But it still seems like a lot.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: DRich

Quote: odiousgambit

Just noticed that for the Purdue/Ohio State game I can get a "no overtime" bet for +2200. Seems like a lot.

college games don't much go into overtime? Or is this a just function of big point spread and big O/U for NFL games too? The point spread is 20.5 and the O/U 62.5 for that game
link to original post

I would think the NO OVERTIME bet would be -2200 not +2200. I would bet most of my net worth on +2200 for no overtime. I would not be shocked if it is a close game.
link to original post

I went back and posted the exact bet, "will the game go into overtime?" , YES being the bet that pays +2200. I screwed up what I first wrote, got it backwards. But it still seems like a lot.
link to original post

It seems like a lot TO YOU! Most would be stunned if it is even a one score difference at the final whistle. But that’s what gambling is! Put down your $100 and post when you get paid your $2200! As a matter of fact, I’ll put up $100 against some Starbucks drink when we next meet. Just answer in this thread before kickoff….

Seems like a horrible bet to me. About 3% of college football games have went to overtime so far this year I’m sure that is less than normal, but a 20 point spread would go into OT much less than average game. Feel like I’m going to be baited into loading up on no OT here...

Quote: SOOPOO

It seems like a lot TO YOU! Most would be stunned if it is even a one score difference at the final whistle. But that’s what gambling is! Put down your $100 and post when you get paid your $2200! As a matter of fact, I’ll put up $100 against some Starbucks drink when we next meet. Just answer in this thread before kickoff….
link to original post

the 'NO' is -10,000 which to me says they aren't really interested in taking action on "no OT"

But Soopoo is it seems. Purdue just upset #8 Michigan State btw

the oddsmaker is basically saying there is something like a 1 in 23 chance there will be overtime ... except of course it is really much better, he thinks, but he's only paying 22:1, and not interested in action on 'no OT' IMO.

Now I am not saying I doubt the oddsmaker, necessarily, but am asking if OT in college ball is quite that rare.

I think a bet would be fun, so you are on, with conditions. I'll posit that your drink has to be $5* or less. If we fail to meet up within a year we agree to settle by Paypal and I'll stick to the $5. I am taking YES on OT and you are taking "NO OT" on the Ohio State/Michigan State game on 11-13-21. I pay for a Starbucks drink $5 or less if I lose and you pay $100 if you lose

We have met before, as I think you remember. I have your cell no. and you should have mine.

* I get a better deal at 22:1 , betMGM ....but less fun.

googled: Here are the 5 most expensive Starbucks drink.

$148.99 Super Venti Flat White. The most expensive Starbucks coffee served was a Super Venti Flat White. ...
$102.15 Caffé Americano. ...
$102.04 White Mocha Frappuccino. ...
$101.50 White Mocha Frappuccino. ...
$92.55 Rewards Drink.

the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

Theoretical hold for +2200 on one side and -10,000 on the other is 3.25%, it’s fair.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: SOOPOO

It seems like a lot TO YOU! Most would be stunned if it is even a one score difference at the final whistle. But that’s what gambling is! Put down your $100 and post when you get paid your $2200! As a matter of fact, I’ll put up $100 against some Starbucks drink when we next meet. Just answer in this thread before kickoff….
link to original post

the 'NO' is -10,000 which to me says they aren't really interested in taking action on "no OT"

But Soopoo is it seems. Purdue just upset #8 Michigan State btw

the oddsmaker is basically saying there is something like a 1 in 23 chance there will be overtime ... except of course it is really much better, he thinks, but he's only paying 22:1, and not interested in action on 'no OT' IMO.

Now I am not saying I doubt the oddsmaker, necessarily, but am asking if OT in college ball is quite that rare.

I think a bet would be fun, so you are on, with conditions. I'll posit that your drink has to be $5* or less. If we fail to meet up within a year we agree to settle by Paypal and I'll stick to the $5. I am taking YES on OT and you are taking "NO OT" on the Ohio State/Michigan State game on 11-13-21. I pay for a Starbucks drink $5 or less if I lose and you pay $100 if you lose

We have met before, as I think you remember. I have your cell no. and you should have mine.

* I get a better deal at 22:1 , betMGM ....but less fun.

googled: Here are the 5 most expensive Starbucks drink.

$148.99 Super Venti Flat White. The most expensive Starbucks coffee served was a Super Venti Flat White. ...
$102.15 Caffé Americano. ...
$102.04 White Mocha Frappuccino. ...
$101.50 White Mocha Frappuccino. ...
$92.55 Rewards Drink.
link to original post

If I lose I’ll send you a check. I don’t do Paypal. Wait…. stepdaughter does and I can have her send it. Or receive it. I often get a double shot espresso which is under $3! Hopefully there will be another east coast WoV meet up…..

Quote: SOOPOO

If I lose I’ll send you a check. I don’t do Paypal. Wait…. stepdaughter does and I can have her send it. Or receive it. I often get a double shot espresso which is under $3! Hopefully there will be another east coast WoV meet up…..
link to original post

a mailed check is OK, either direction it goes, with me

I consider this an official acceptance of the bet

yeah we need another meet-up and now we have a reason. Is PA neutral ground?

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: SOOPOO

If I lose I’ll send you a check. I don’t do Paypal. Wait…. stepdaughter does and I can have her send it. Or receive it. I often get a double shot espresso which is under $3! Hopefully there will be another east coast WoV meet up…..
link to original post

a mailed check is OK, either direction it goes, with me

I consider this an official acceptance of the bet

yeah we need another meet-up and now we have a reason. Is PA neutral ground?
link to original post

If a Pittsburgh area meet up is scheduled there is a good chance I’d make it.

Quote: mcallister3200

Theoretical hold for +2200 on one side and -10,000 on the other is 3.25%, it’s fair.
link to original post

Getting back to this, I do not get -10,000 as a reasonable bet to offer

3.25% is about 1 in 31. So a fair bet, if 3.25% occurrence is correct, should be 30:1. For the YES-OT that would be +3000 , and for the NO-OT -3000. A $100 winning bet would earn $3.33 on the NO, $3000 on the YES

the EV, out of 100 $100 bets on the YES, 3.25 win on average, pay $9750 [3.25*3000]
96.75 lose on average, collect $9675 [96.75*100]  

Out of 100 bets on the NO, 96.75 win, pay $322.18 [96.75*3.33]
3.25 lose, collect $325 [3.25*100]

so a typical outfit that still *wants action both ways* and *profit* might make the odds +2200 and -3500, say.............. and -3500 pays $2.86

the new EV, out of 100 bets on the YES, 3.25 win on average, pay $7150 [3.25*2200]
96.75 lose on average, collect $9675 [96.75*100]  for a profit

Out of 100 bets on the NO, 96.75 win, pay $276.71 [96.75*2.86]
3.25 lose, collect $325 [3.25*100] for a profit

BetMGM does not want to go with -3500 on the NO. They don't want the action , so it's -10,000

Or you can show me where I'm wrong

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: mcallister3200

Theoretical hold for +2200 on one side and -10,000 on the other is 3.25%, it’s fair.
link to original post

Getting back to this, I do not get -10,000 as a reasonable bet to offer

3.25% is about 1 in 31. So a fair bet, if 3.25% occurrence is correct, should be 30:1. For the YES-OT that would be +3000 , and for the NO-OT -3000. A $100 winning bet would earn $3.33 on the NO, $3000 on the YES

the EV, out of 100 $100 bets on the YES, 3.25 win on average, pay $9750 [3.25*3000]
96.75 lose on average, collect $9675 [96.75*100]  

Out of 100 bets on the NO, 96.75 win, pay $322.18 [96.75*3.33]
3.25 lose, collect $325 [3.25*100]

so a typical outfit that still *wants action both ways* and *profit* might make the odds +2200 and -3500, say.............. and -3500 pays $2.86

the new EV, out of 100 bets on the YES, 3.25 win on average, pay $7150 [3.25*2200]
96.75 lose on average, collect $9675 [96.75*100]  for a profit

Out of 100 bets on the NO, 96.75 win, pay $276.71 [96.75*2.86]
3.25 lose, collect $325 [3.25*100] for a profit

BetMGM does not want to go with -3500 on the NO. They don't want the action , so it's -10,000

Or you can show me where I'm wrong
link to original post

You are correct of course, it should be obvious on sight it’s not THAT low of a hold. I simply typed it into a calculator, either there was a flaw in the calculator or I typed it in wrong.

Theo hold is 48.63%!!!!!!!!

well, it was a good exercise for me to work that out. Whole business fairly new to me

___________


I haven't really looked at this bet you're referring to but I believe in general the skimpier the payout the more likely it is you can get an edge and in general is a much better deal than the other side with a large payout

a good example is betonline.ag for the Bills/Jets game

they have the Bills at -610 and the Jets at +470

it's a 13 point spread

according to the linked spread to money line calculator a fair price on the Bills would be -1456.80 but you can get -610

and a fair price on the Jets would be +794 but you can only get + 470

it's calculated with a 4.55% HE



obviously gamblers don't consider a bet priced at -610 to be any fun and they avoid it like the plague causing it to be a better deal when considering only what a fair payout should be - not considering any handicapping factors




https://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-calculators/spread-ml-converter/

https://www.betonline.ag/sportsbook


.

This does not directly address what you are talking about, but kind of changing the subject, but here are some thoughts about those odds


I look at something like +470 and -610 as an oddsmaker bailing on making proper odds. Of course I see it all the time, and the former example is even worse. 


the first is 470 to 100 odds which says chances of winning are 1 in 5.7 [if it was a fair bet]. I checked it out and I seem to be right. 


the second is 610 to 100 odds which likewise relates to 1 in 7.1, though it's the house taking the small side of the bet


I see this as saying true chances of winning he thinks is maybe one in 6.25 to 6.5 but he doesn't want to be wrong and have the sharps go after one side or the other, so he is spreading it out, expecting to foil either side. So I stay away from these. Now if one side is +470 and the other -510 or so, that is what I like to see.


I may be locked out of my account due to cherry picking the offers btw. Could be a temporary glitch.

Quote: odiousgambit

I look at something like +470 and -610 as an oddsmaker bailing on making proper odds. Of course I see it all the time, and the former example is even worse. 


the first is 470 to 100 odds which says chances of winning are 1 in 5.7 [if it was a fair bet]. I checked it out and I seem to be right. 


the second is 610 to 100 odds which likewise relates to 1 in 7.1, though it's the house taking the small side of the bet

if the spread to money line calculator is correct - which it is I believe most of the time - after factoring in the HE it implies that the Jets will win right about 10.7% of the time

or about once in every 9.32 games - of course nobody can win .32 games - but that is just for the math

if that is correct at -610 the Bills in 100 games will win $100 in 89.3 games or $8,930

and they will lose $610 10.7 times for a loss of $6,527 which implies a player edge betting the Bills of about 3.93%

of course, all of this is highly speculative

if you believe your handicapping can get you true odds that are more accurate than this than you may well have an edge sometimes

of course, there aren't many who can do that



.

I’m not counting my $5 in the bank yet…. But OSU scored 42 points in first 23 minutes. I don’t think they will make it to 110, but up 28 makes it a tough comeback for Perdue.

Quote: SOOPOO

I’m not counting my $5 in the bank yet…. But OSU scored 42 points in first 23 minutes. I don’t think they will make it to 110, but up 28 makes it a tough comeback for Perdue.
link to original post

OSU just had to kick a field goal for the first time! I'm feeling good about my bet now! [not]

OSU probably has the best offense in college football. Their defense is not very good so they probably will not win the championship.

Quote: DRich

OSU probably has the best offense in college football. Their defense is not very good so they probably will not win the championship.
link to original post

DRich…. you can enter ANY college team and will be correct in saying ‘they probably won’t win the championship’. Same for any NHL team, any NFL team, any MLB team, any NBA team, etc…. (Respective championships)

OSU is probably 3rd most likely to win the National Championship after Georgia and Alabama.

Won’t get much mainstream action, but I can’t put into words how amazing what Bernhard Langer just accomplished is. At age 64 he just won the Charles Schwab Cup, which is the season long champion of the PGA Senior Tour. I think he is the first person to even win a single event at 64 or older, let alone being consistent enough over the last 39 events to come out on top. He shot a 63 in the third round this week, besting his age!
Phil Mickelson won the final tournament, but didn’t amass enough points to win the overall championship, because he didn’t play enough events. If he committed to the Senior Tour, he’d be an odds on favorite to win the Championship next year.

Who do you think are the most underrated NFL players of the last 30-40 years?

Question popped into my head as I’m watching the Manning cast and they were talking to Philip Rivers, thought “Rivers was a better player than Eli nearly every season of their careers but Eli will make the Hall and Rivers probably won’t.” WAY too much credit or blame for a 50+ person team’s playoff success given to the quarterback position. Rivers and Romo are my candidates for most underrated players of my time in my opinion.

For example, Barry Sanders never even had the success Rivers did in the postseason but most of us were just calling him the best running back of all time a few pages ago, other positions simply are judged by completely different standards despite playing on the same teams in the same sports we would have all been calling Emmitt the best of we judged them by consistent standards.

There is simply no other sport where there’s such a disparity in standards players are judged by between different positions and it’s largely based on after the fact narrative rather than the actual performance. MAYBE baseball but those double standards based more on if a guy was nice to the media in his career or not and the baseball writers pretending like they don’t already have a baker’s dozen or so streroid users in the hall.

And particularly when you think about Eli and Rivers in comparison playoff success isn’t really even an apples to apples or fair comparison, Rivers was going to have to go through Brady and Belichek or Manning and Dungy every year while Eli often faced largely incompetent head coaches like McCarthy, Carroll, Payton, and Garrett and somewhat lesser quarterbacks so while you can only beat the teams in front of you the pathway wasn’t really that comparable in my opinion.

_________


most underrated - Darren Sproles

all time leader in all purpose yards

in 2008 he became just the 2nd player in NFL history with 50 rushing yards - 50 receiving yards and 100 kick return yards

no definition of a little man but at just 5'6" he has to be the greatest little man ever to show up in an NFL uniform

love to see those little guys crush



.

Sean Landeta.

Quote: mcallister3200

Who do you think are the most underrated NFL players of the last 30-40 years?

Question popped into my head as I’m watching the Manning cast and they were talking to Philip Rivers, thought “Rivers was a better player than Eli nearly every season of their careers but Eli will make the Hall and Rivers probably won’t.” WAY too much credit or blame for a 50+ person team’s playoff success given to the quarterback position. Rivers and Romo are my candidates for most underrated players of my time in my opinion.

And particularly when you think about Eli and Rivers in comparison playoff success isn’t really even an apples to apples or fair comparison, Rivers was going to have to go through Brady and Belichek or Manning and Dungy every year while Eli often faced largely incompetent head coaches like McCarthy, Carroll, Payton, and Garrett and somewhat lesser quarterbacks so while you can only beat the teams in front of you the pathway wasn’t really that comparable in my opinion.
link to original post

(Quote clipped, relevance)

When I look at Eli v. Rivers, I think it's hard to take the hardware completely out of the equation. After all, it's not like the hardware is an absolute requirement to get into the HoF, or you wouldn't have Dan Marino---and guys like Elway would have made it in with or without.

You make a fair point about Rivers having to go through either the Colts or the Patriots every year, but on the flip side of that coin, Eli had two opportunities to, "Go through," Belichick/Brady and was not only successful in both of them---but broke up a Perfect Season during Brady's best statistical year in the process. With that, I would say that Rivers (indirectly) had more opportunities to get that done and couldn't do it. In fact, Brady and Co. beat the Chargers in the playoffs both that year and the year prior to that. Overall playoff record against NWE is Eli 2-0 and Rivers 0-3 (2018 Season)---Rivers 2006 Season Playoff matchup against NE, in particular, was a complete disaster.

Let's take a look at all-time rankings:

Passing Yards:

Rivers: 5th
Eli: 9th

Currently, the only player ranked above Eli (aside from Rivers) who is not a surefire HoF'er is Matt Ryan, who I would like to think, is not on pace to get in. I would think that Matty Ice will overtake Rivers in this category if he plays two more healthy seasons and keeps his starting spot...and he can maybe even do it if he continues at this pace for this season and duplicates that next year or even comes close.

Career Completions:

Rivers: 5th
Eli: 9th

This is basically the same thing with Matty Ice (currently above Eli) in the mix. In fact, Ryan could realistically overtake Rivers by the end of this season and almost certainly will next season. In terms of postseason, Ryan is currently 4-6 and Rivers is 5-7, so neither has been particularly successful.

Passer Rating:

Rivers: 12th
Eli: T-51st

This is the one area where Rivers has clearly been superior to Manning...Rivers---A few more games, 55 more Passing Touchdowns, 35 Fewer Interceptions...ratio of 2.014:1 to 1.5:1, so QB RATE is going to be a glaring difference here. Rivers also has better Y/C and Y/A.

How much does QB RATE matter? It definitely matters, but you currently have a few guys even above Rivers who I would like to think are definitely not getting into the HoF---such as Tony Romo and Kirk Cousins. A few guys high in this are relatively young in their careers, so the jury's out.

One mantle that I believe Drew Bledsoe held for many years was the best quarterback NOT getting into the Hall of Fame, at least, in my opinion. I think Rivers should replace him in that category with Eli behind Rivers, so I personally wouldn't put either of them, or Ben Roethlisberger, in the HoF.

I would say that Brady, Manning and Brees are all in the same, "Generation," and same with Rodgers, who will probably get in. How many QB's can you really have get into the HoF in one generation? If Rivers gets in, then Roethlisberger does and then Manning does...and I don't know that you really need 20%+ of a generation's perpetual starting QB's in the HoF, so I say none of them.

However, if I had to choose between Eli and Rivers, then I would go Rivers. I actually wanted to look into the Rushing Game to see if I could find a defense for Eli on the regular season stats, but I think (overall) Rivers had the worst of it with ground support and still managed to produce better stats with greater efficiency.

That said, I'm still not a huge fan of the, "Go through," argument because one guy got it done against inarguably the best team of the era (twice) and the other didn't. You might argue that the 2011 (Season) Giants even getting into the playoffs was kind of flukey, but strangely enough, had LAC been able to produce a 9-7 record that season, they too would have made the playoffs.

All fair. I guess my overall point remains that while championships bolster the case in any sport no other position in any other team sport is judged by similar standards, starting pitchers being judged by win-loss records probably most comparable.

You’re also talking to the guy who for the most part doesn’t think “clutch” is a thing or at the least is massively overblown, but that “clutch” performance is more of a small sample size/variance issue without enough of a sample size of those situations to normalize, hello David Tyree catch. So perhaps I’m minimizing the titles more than needed because of my clutch viewpoint.

Mission…. I’ll bet you any amount of money that Eli gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you any amount of money that Ben gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Rivers gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Matt Ryan gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Matt Stafford gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Russell Wilson gets into the PFHOF. Oh yeah, I’ll bet any amount of money that Tom Brady gets into the PFHOF. Same for Aaron Rodgers. And Drew Brees.

Point being, you can’t not hear about the 10th best QB being ‘great’ in any given season. Jackson. Allen. Murray. Brady. Prescott. Herbert. Stafford. Wilson. Ryan. Burrow.

Are they all ‘great’? Add Deshaun Watson, and likely Trevor Lawrence by next year.

Quote: lilredrooster

_________


most underrated - Darren Sproles

all time leader in all purpose yards

in 2008 he became just the 2nd player in NFL history with 50 rushing yards - 50 receiving yards and 100 kick return yards

no definition of a little man but at just 5'6" he has to be the greatest little man ever to show up in an NFL uniform

love to see those little guys crush



.
link to original post

Good one

I love that Eli gave us two titles but having seen almost every snap he ever took, he is not a Hall of Fame QB. He may get in, but he is not among the elite QBs of all time. He was an above-average NFL QB who rose to the occasion, twice.
For what little it is worth, Phil Simms is my vote for best Giant QB in my lifetime. He won one SB and while he was hurt for the second one, he lead the team to a 12-0 mark before he got hurt. It was his team that won, even if he was unable to play. I don't think they make the Big Game with Jeff Hostetler the QB all season.

Quote: mcallister3200

All fair. I guess my overall point remains that while championships bolster the case in any sport no other position in any other team sport is judged by similar standards, starting pitchers being judged by win-loss records probably most comparable.

You’re also talking to the guy who for the most part doesn’t think “clutch” is a thing or at the least is massively overblown, but that “clutch” performance is more of a small sample size/variance issue without enough of a sample size of those situations to normalize, hello David Tyree catch. So perhaps I’m minimizing the titles more than needed because of my clutch viewpoint.
link to original post

With, "Clutch," I would go as far as to say massively overblown, but I don't think it's totally non-existent. I tend to think of the concept of, "Clutch," really just coming back more to hyper focus and playing to your top potential at the right time.

Obviously, an athlete should always be playing to his top potential, particularly a professional athlete, but I think we both recognize that's not always going to be the case. Anyway, that's what I think clutch is...just a heightened focus that some guys can tap into, but I could be wrong. One play is obviously going to be sample sizing, of course.

That's a really good point about the other sports; I never really thought about it that way. That said, at most, I'm a casual hockey fan and was a casual baseball fan...except two seasons I really got into the latter.

Quote: SOOPOO

Mission…. I’ll bet you any amount of money that Eli gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you any amount of money that Ben gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Rivers gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Matt Ryan gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Matt Stafford gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Russell Wilson gets into the PFHOF. Oh yeah, I’ll bet any amount of money that Tom Brady gets into the PFHOF. Same for Aaron Rodgers. And Drew Brees.

Point being, you can’t not hear about the 10th best QB being ‘great’ in any given season. Jackson. Allen. Murray. Brady. Prescott. Herbert. Stafford. Wilson. Ryan. Burrow.

Are they all ‘great’? Add Deshaun Watson, and likely Trevor Lawrence by next year.
link to original post

I don't disagree with you. I do believe that Ben, Eli and Rivers will all get into the HoF; I just don't believe that they should.

If you lay 6:5 and set a finite year, then I'll take the, "No," on Stafford. I have to consider inflation as he's not even retired yet and you will probably want at least five years after he is eligible for induction.

The Packers are once again selling phony shares of stock in their team.
This time, they are only asking $300 a share, which gets you nothing more than a certificate suitable for framing. They have 300,000 of these worthless certificates. and hope to raise 90 million dollars. This is the sixth time they have raised cash by selling utterly worthless " shares". They brought in almost 100 million dollars a few years back.
Unlike a real stock, the buyers should not expect dividends, nor growth and you can't privately sell your shares. Shares don't appreciate or have any value. The Packers can issue more anytime they want, with permission from the league. They are not considered securities by the government and aren't subject to security laws. It's akin to buying somebody a star. For $300 you get a fancy certificate.
As the only " publicly owned" team in the NFL, only they can issue these stock certificates.

For the price, it still beats being a fan of a team owned by Snyder or Spanos.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: SOOPOO

Mission…. I’ll bet you any amount of money that Eli gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you any amount of money that Ben gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Rivers gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Matt Ryan gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Matt Stafford gets into the PFHOF. I’ll bet you $5 that Russell Wilson gets into the PFHOF. Oh yeah, I’ll bet any amount of money that Tom Brady gets into the PFHOF. Same for Aaron Rodgers. And Drew Brees.

Point being, you can’t not hear about the 10th best QB being ‘great’ in any given season. Jackson. Allen. Murray. Brady. Prescott. Herbert. Stafford. Wilson. Ryan. Burrow.

Are they all ‘great’? Add Deshaun Watson, and likely Trevor Lawrence by next year.
link to original post

I don't disagree with you. I do believe that Ben, Eli and Rivers will all get into the HoF; I just don't believe that they should.

If you lay 6:5 and set a finite year, then I'll take the, "No," on Stafford. I have to consider inflation as he's not even retired yet and you will probably want at least five years after he is eligible for induction.
link to original post

LOL…. you are on! My $6 against your $5. Stafford gets into PFHOF by 8 years after he plays his last game in NFL. I wonder what the odds are that I’m alive on that date? If either of us die before the bet can be resolved…. No bet! If he just plays a few more years his stats will make him a shoo-in. Even if he really doesn’t deserve enshrinement.

I’ll add this to my list of bets I forget about a week or so after I make it.

The Lakers will soon be playing in the Crypto.com Arena............the Staples Center is being renamed

...................

Was watching Steph Curry play .......he’s hitting shots from way out there far beyond the 3 point line.......a couple of years ago Oscar Robertson commented that if he hits from way out there the D needs to get on him way out there......he doesn’t really shoot a jumper.....it’s more of an old style one handed set shot almost way down at chest level.....he is quick....but I agree with Oscar....it seems to me like an aggressive D player getting in his face out there could bother him...it almost looks like they are letting him get off his shots because he is so far out

Quote: lilredrooster

...................

Was watching Steph Curry play .......he’s hitting shots from way out there far beyond the 3 point line.......a couple of years ago Oscar Robertson commented that if he hits from way out there the D needs to get on him way out there......he doesn’t really shoot a jumper.....it’s more of an old style one handed set shot almost way down at chest level.....he is quick....but I agree with Oscar....it seems to me like an aggressive D player getting in his face out there could bother him...it almost looks like they are letting him get off his shots because he is so far out
link to original post

He is such a skilled dribbler that if they close out too aggressively he gets around the defender. It’s pick your poison with him. I don’t think his 3 point percentage is that much above 40%, because the defenders do challenge him.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: lilredrooster

...................

Was watching Steph Curry play .......he’s hitting shots from way out there far beyond the 3 point line.......a couple of years ago Oscar Robertson commented that if he hits from way out there the D needs to get on him way out there......he doesn’t really shoot a jumper.....it’s more of an old style one handed set shot almost way down at chest level.....he is quick....but I agree with Oscar....it seems to me like an aggressive D player getting in his face out there could bother him...it almost looks like they are letting him get off his shots because he is so far out
link to original post

He is such a skilled dribbler that if they close out too aggressively he gets around the defender. It’s pick your poison with him. I don’t think his 3 point percentage is that much above 40%, because the defenders do challenge him.
link to original post

Totally agree, Steph is easily a top 3 ball handler in the league probably second behind the frequently absent Kyrie. I said this several pages back but the ballhandling is the primary difference between him and his brother Seth.

He also knows when/how to just give it up right away after he gets it early in the clock in a spot he doesn’t like so that he can run around a few more screens for a better look.

I don’t believe the D in the NBA is very strong.......... there are some good D players particularly shot blockers but in general the focus is all on offense ....... You can really see this in the All Star games where they get up over 300 points.......... in 2017 they got close to 400 points ...........how ridiculous.......that is what the fans love and what drives sales.........in the All Star games there is zero pride at all on D......I believe that says something

I agree that Curry can penetrate if they press him.....but I don’t agree he is being challenged way out there.........At 40% that is like shooting 60% on 2s in terms of effectiveness

IMO you may be underestimating how many screens he is running around and finding in the process of getting most of his shots, they’re certainly trying to press him but you double those screens and you’re giving away a dunk at the rim. The way him and Klay read screens and defenses is a thing of beauty.

It can also not be dismissed just how much better shooters players are today than they were even 20 years ago, most weren’t asked or expected to shoot outside so just didn’t develop it to that extent not that they weren’t capable. They were better at hooks and runners that for good reason aren’t shot so much today. I’m not talking about there not being some elite shooters like Steph then, I’m referring to the difference in shooting skill among the average players on the team and the impact that has on the defense. Then like two guys on each team on the floor at a time were competent three point shooters, now if a team has more than one guy on the floor at a time who can’t shoot threes that team has a math and spacing problem offensively.

A part of the players being better shooters is also just the 1-2 guys who used to be on every team who were just big but couldn’t move their feet at all or do much of anything related to a skill have been eliminated from the game and replaced with competent shooters. Not being able to move your feet at all laterally is a death sentence in modern professional basketball almost regardless of height. The one thing I miss is you don’t see as many quality rim protectors challenging guys at the rim anymore, fewer Patrick Ewing’s.

Quote: lilredrooster

...................

Was watching Steph Curry play .......he’s hitting shots from way out there far beyond the 3 point line.......a couple of years ago Oscar Robertson commented that if he hits from way out there the D needs to get on him way out there......he doesn’t really shoot a jumper.....it’s more of an old style one handed set shot almost way down at chest level.....he is quick....but I agree with Oscar....it seems to me like an aggressive D player getting in his face out there could bother him...it almost looks like they are letting him get off his shots because he is so far out
link to original post

I went back and read the Oscar quote. Got to respect the guy as one of the best of all times but he is just not watching the games. He says they don't pick up guys until the free throw line....he's not even paying attention to the games if he's saying that or he's being disingenuous to discredit modern players, it has to be one or the other to say that.

Love this segment with Kobe and his old high school point guard when he returned to Philly later in his career.

Quote: lilredrooster

I don’t believe the D in the NBA is very strong.......... there are some good D players particularly shot blockers but in general the focus is all on offense ....... You can really see this in the All Star games where they get up over 300 points.......... in 2017 they got close to 400 points ...........how ridiculous.......that is what the fans love and what drives sales.........in the All Star games there is zero pride at all on D......I believe that says something

I agree that Curry can penetrate if they press him.....but I don’t agree he is being challenged way out there.........At 40% that is like shooting 60% on 2s in terms of effectiveness
link to original post

Do you judge the NFL defenses by the Pro Bowl results? Or the MLB by the All-Star game? Playing defense in basketball is a team effort. a player takes chances knowing his team has his back. All-Stars have a day or so to practice together so defensive cohesion is impossible.

Quote: billryan

Quote: lilredrooster

I don’t believe the D in the NBA is very strong.......... there are some good D players particularly shot blockers but in general the focus is all on offense ....... You can really see this in the All Star games where they get up over 300 points.......... in 2017 they got close to 400 points ...........how ridiculous.......that is what the fans love and what drives sales.........in the All Star games there is zero pride at all on D......I believe that says something

I agree that Curry can penetrate if they press him.....but I don’t agree he is being challenged way out there.........At 40% that is like shooting 60% on 2s in terms of effectiveness
link to original post

Do you judge the NFL defenses by the Pro Bowl results? Or the MLB by the All-Star game? Playing defense in basketball is a team effort. a player takes chances knowing his team has his back. All-Stars have a day or so to practice together so defensive cohesion is impossible.
link to original post

Agree. Defense in regular season NBA games is amazing. The switching, closing out, pick anticipation, overall rotation is a thing of beauty. When a team is NOT working hard on the defensive end even the WORST offensive NBA team can exploit them.

Back on Steph Curry for a moment. He leads NBA history by a wide margin in games with 9+ threes in NBA history with 38, over 4x more than anyone else!!! He is just a different species of player to try and defend. The only other players to have more than 5 games with the accomplishment are Harden and Lillard with 9 games and Klay Thompson with 7.

Defense in the nba is tough to evaluate, when a team is locked in and playing phenomenal defense it’s difficult to tell because they will barely have to move to rotate their positioning is so good, while when you see the spectacular plays of players flying around and making plays their team is likely playing average defense at best creating the need for flying around. Similar when there’s a blown coverage, you see the last guy and he gets the blame but the mistake was probably 2-3 rotations ago.

A counterintuitive concept that goes against the way most coaches think:

The best shot on average a team can get is the first shot that would be deemed a quality shot. On average a little more than 2% of passes in the NBA turn into turnovers, if a defense can force 4-6 passes instead of 2-3 they’ve likely doubled that teams turnover rate, there is no improvement in shot quality from an already quality shot that can make up for doubling the turnover rate.

Same sort of concept applies to 3 point volume at a league average level vs 40% with half the three point attempts, the gravity of more decent threes going up causes more hard close outs opening up the rest of the floor.

Ohanti wins the MVP, playing for a team that went nowhere. He won it because he is the only two way player in baseball. Does this mean he should win the MVP every year for the rest of his career unless another two way player comes along?

If I was coaching against Curry I would have my best defensive guard in his face every step he takes........from the moment the ball is thrown inbounds or rebounded if possible........trying to keep him from receiving a pass or pressing him if he does have the ball.......yes he will often beat the press..........yes he will still score..........nobody is going to stop the guy.........remember the fool Artest who called himself the Kobe stopper?...........anyway the idea would be to bother him.........make him work harder.........I believe it would help my team because his shooting % would go down.........I don’t see that being done........no creativity by opposing coaches.......
it’s like they just accept it......hard to believe that I’ve never even one time see anyone block his one hand set shot that he shoots from chest level.......come on........the guy is not Superman

Sorry but I don’t at all believe that D in the NBA is amazing

Yes. Put your best defender on him when he steps of the team bus.

lol the bus. Y’all act like screens don’t exist. Just listen to the narrator and watch at the art of how he reads screens and sets up the defense to pick their poison. If you are willing to listen. They are trying...

The narrator Ben Taylor’s book; Thinking Basketball, from 2014, is a good one.

Here's a long one, I'm not going to lie, but it's a project that I will be putting out an article for every week or two until it is completed:

https://wizardofvegas.com/article/all-the-way-2000-2002/

Basically, I'm trying to take a look at the teams that had a realistic shot of winning the Super Bowl from 2000-2020 NFL Seasons.

The method that I am using is that I want to fix what happened in the fringes, mostly due to playing in weak Divisions. For example, when we get there, there is no way that the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks are going to make the Playoffs.

What we are going for here is to use a metric that I am calling, "Adjusted Wins," by slightly changing how many wins a team is credited with in Divisional Games based on how that same Division performs in out of Division Games. For the purposes of this assignment, while we don't care about Conferences, we aren't going to adjust wins based on Non-Conference play because that could get messy.

We will also discuss why Divisions and Conferences exist and why they are stupid, at least, from a competitive point of view. The short answer of what I say in the article is:

1.) Conferences exist because it used to be two different actual leagues and they somewhat maintained that. However, that's pointless now and we would see at least one team (The Seattle Seahawks) actually switch Conferences during the years covered in the first part of this piece.

2.) Divisions are not good for deciding who gets into the Playoffs and do not foster competition whatsoever. The main reason they exist is the theoretical cost, travel and time savings associated with playing teams who are theoretically (looking at you, Cowboys) relatively close to you.

I will get more in-depth in the final article in this series, but here is what I think the best format would be for who gets into the Playoffs:

RULES:

1.) We will make ties impossible by playing a full fifteen minute overtime and then reverting to college rules if no winner is produced after the OT.

2.) During the Regular Season, no team may play any other team more than once. In the event of ties for Playoff Seeding, the tiebreaker will simply be the head-to-head result, if any. That failing, then the tiebreaker will be record against common opponents. That failing, then the tiebreaker will be Points Differential.

3.) There are no bye weeks and only eight teams should make the Playoffs. They probably would never do that because of money, of course, but my chief complaint with other sports leagues is that, by definition, mediocre teams make the playoffs when you have half of the entire league advancing. The NFL is perhaps not quite THAT bad, but having nearly 40% of the teams advance to the Playoffs is still pretty weak.

I could still even settle for twelve teams and keep the bye weeks as long as Divisions are eliminated.

Divisions are leftovers from the days when travel expenses were a factor and rivalries were needed to put butts in the seats. I do think there is something to be said for keeping traditional rivalries but also see the point of eliminating them.
I'd go the other way and have 16 teams in the playoffs. A 16 game schedule with 16 teams advancing and 16 going home.