Fading Seattle in Second Half

[Nolan Dalla]

This topic was introduced in another thread ("Did Seattle Tank the Texas Game?"), but I had difficulty posting my message to that thread -- so I started a new new topic on the subject of Seattle's second-half prospects. Sorry for the confusion.

On the subject of betting against Seattle, in another post NGO wrote:

"My thought is they may be a good go-against team for the next two months. But then mid- August to early September they may crank it up again in preparation for the playoffs. So, maybe going against them the next 6-8 weeks may be the best bet."

Other posts in the same thread noted that Seattle could play .500 ball the rest of the season and still win the AL West division. However, if Seattle plays .500 (or even .600) ball from here til the end of September -- we would still earn a profit by fading them every single game, since they will be home favorites in the range of -130 and up almost every game and will rarely be worse than even money on the road.

The premise is that as the season progresses the Mariners will opt to rest starters and develop younger talent at some point, which will cause a nice edge for bettors going the other way (line will be based on outdated lineups and stats -- since the Mariners could have 2-3 new faces in the lineup each night). There's also the argument that the Mariners simply are not as good as their record indicates and would even regress downward if they left the same lineup intact.

With ~82 games left to be played, it's safe to assume Seattle will regress to the mean in the second half of the season. It's inconceivale they would play ANY BETTER than how they are playing right now. Related to NGO's point above -- would it then be wiser to fade Seattle in games 83-124 or 125-165 ? In other words WHEN can we maximize our profit by fading the best team in baseball?

NGO believes fading Seattle in games 83-124 is preferable to fading them in the final quarter of the season. He says Seattle will "crank it up in mid-August and early September in preparation for the playoffs." This seems like a plausible argument at first glance.

However, might the opposite alos be true? My take on this is that Seattle may still play at a very high level the first few weeks after the All Star break, since they are still in the running to set records for number of wins in the regular season (in MLB history, in AL history, and certainly in team history). This could be enough motivation for the Mariners to continue winning at a 60-65 percent clip for games 84-125 (approximate time frame). Then, once they have either regressed by playing .575 ball or worse -- or have actually continued at the .650 pace, they will most certainly fade in the final month of the season. If Seattle continues it's hot streak, fading them in games 125-165 will be even better for handicappers, since they will be VERY OVERPRICED in those games and we can probably win money if they play anything less than 62 percent baseball. In a sense they become the ERSATZ Yankees of baseball. It seems to me that mid-August to early September is presicely when the Mariners will play more bench players, mediocre starters and relivers and will generally be content to coast into the playoffs without much of an effort.

I agree with the basic theory that Seattle will be a good team to fade at some point. But I tend to think the time frame is towards the end of the year rather than earlier.

My questions:

(1) Who aggrees and disagrees with the timing of Seattle's supposed regression to the mean?

(2) Reasons Seattle will fade towards .500 Have we missed something?

(3) Is it likely Seattle could play .680 baseball from here on out and we could lose money by fading them?

(4) Are there any historical angles (during last twenty years) which shows the second-half results of HOT teams -- particularly ATS ? NY Yankees had a awesome streak the first three quarters of the season a few years ago (1998?). Any recollections of their closing results in September?

(5) Finally, might the theory work in reverse -- taking the worst teams and getting +150 and up every night?

Nolan Dalla


[This message has been edited by Nolan Dalla (edited 07-06-2001).]

 

[NJO]

Part of my reasoning goes back to the NFL Broncos several years ago (96-97 season, I believe), when they clinched home field early, stumbled home, then couldn't get going again and lost at home to Jax. The reasoning then, as it seems to still hold across sports, was "you can't flick a switch and get something back when you've lost it."

So, my thought was Seattle would look to "get that switch flicked back on" going into October.

That said, I think your alternative reasoning is something worth thinking seriously about, and could very well be more valid than mine.

As for your questions:

(1) Still thinking...

(2)

Sele stumbling after hot start
Pitchers learning Ichiro
Opposing teams knowing tendencies now
Injuries?
Piniella - is he a good or great manager?
Resting starters with backups not up to the task
Overworked starters?

(3) I think motivation may be the key here; I believe in Seattle, but on gut feel, I find it hard to believe they can continue at their current pace; recent history demostrates some sort of stumble, I think, as Seattle is 9-9 its last 18 and 14-11 its last 25, far behind the torrid early pace

(4) I'll rely on others here with that data

(5) I think that theory is certainly also worth thinking about; perhaps look at the season starting over/under number of wins posted for those worth considering to guesstimate their end number of wins and go from there? There will be "value" there in that you'll be playing with inflated lines because "how can you bet on the Devil Rays?", but that strategy can be a ball-breaker when TB loses 10 in a row (certainly not inconceivable).

It would take guts, but I think it would be a winner in the end.

 

[Never Caught Up]

***Picking our battles vs Seattle***

Good points Nolan, NJO and others.

I think profit can be maximixed playing against Seattle by throwing out a few scenerios where playing against them - - - or any other team - - - are not generally profitable in the long run.

I wouldn't want to go against them in game one of a home series or in game three of a home series if they lose game one and win game two.

For twenty years I have watched a situational play that I like to refer to as "AH!" and if someone wants to almost guarantee their loss of money just play the road team after the home team loses the opener and then wins game two.

I don't have stored data to give exact numbers here, but more times than not you will break even or maybe do a little better than break even just by playing home teams on game one of any series and you can actually show a small profit over the long haul by playing the home team after an AH.

That doesn't justify a play by itself, but by including it in the whole package I think it is an indicator that can be applied to this situation with Seattle.

Hope that makes sense . . . or should I say cents?

 

[Nolan Dalla]

NJO:

Don't misunderstand -- you are really onto something here, which in fact is the basis of contrarian handicapping and fading public sentiment (which takes courage, at times).

You used an NFL analogy in bringing up this point. However, the Denver Broncos that year essentially had nothing to play for (the "perfect season" possibility had already been thwarted by a mid-season loss). So, Denver's fade in the closing weeks was somewhat predictable.

However, there are some contradictory historical patterns:

(1) Rams in 1999 closed with a vengence. there was no mean regression (which cost me a bundle of money). My take is that the Rams had been so bad for so long that once confidence was established that emotion carried over into the later part of the seaosn. Might Seattle have the same motivations? I realize baseball is not based so much on emotional factors nor motivation as football, but might there be a "bunker mentality" in Seattle where the players have circled the wagons and played their assess off in reaction to the Griffey, Johnson, and Rodriquez departures? Note that we have seen the same thing happen (on a smaller scale) in Balitmore, where once the team got rid of all the dead wood, the younger ballclub has played respectable baseball and in essense taken a "us against the world" mentality (that is healthy in terms of motivation).

(2) I am doing this purely from memory, but when the NYY a few years ago were chasing the 110-game win mark (I forgot the figure), that made the Yankees play pretty consistently through the second-half of the season. But with that same lineup (and a better pitching staff) the 2000 Yankees stumbled into the playoffs and were a terrible value in almost every game (I made a nice score betting Tampa and other bad teams agaisnt Yankees last year since they were getting +220 and up and were fotne motivated to play well, while Yankees played several reserves). Point is -- it all depends on WHAT MOTIVATES SEATTLE, and at what point do they abandon the dream of wining 115 games and simply start packing it in for the playoffs?

(3) Tangetory tot eh previous point, the LA Lakers in the 2001 playoffs were motivated by the winning streak. Most basketball series have a back-and-forth W-L pattern, but with the Lakers pumped for every game they were able to maintain an extremely high level of performance in every single game. Seattle probably doesn't have the talnet disparity that the Lakers have in relation to the rest of the league (different sports of course), but once the Seattle players have their eyes on IMMORTALITY, that could enble this team to maintain a consistent level of achievement.

Again -- the best indicator would be to take the best ten teams (W-L records) of the past 20 years or so through the first half of the season -- and look for patterns where slumps or mean regression occured. I think even 6-7 samples from previous years would be enough to establish some predictability. Anyone care to volunteer to pour of over the charts of the last several years and come up with SECOND HALF results of the best teams -- broken down by week or game number?

-- Nolan Dalla