MLB - Monday, 4/25/16

**No coincidences** · 04-26-16, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

Comeback begins with a 3-2, +1.26 night. And Reds were 3-3 in the 7th with Syndergaard out of the game, I would take +208 in that spot 100% of the time.

Other than that tiny little fact that the Reds have the worst bullpen in baseball, yeah.

**LT Profits** · 04-26-16, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Other than that tiny little fact that the Reds have the worst bullpen in baseball, yeah.

Yeah but still +208 for a 2-inning game regardless.

**No coincidences** · 04-26-16, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

Yeah but still +208 for a 2-inning game regardless.

You seriously need to start actually watching games.

Cincinnati is absolutely atrocious.

Your numbers are handicapping you.

**LT Profits** · 04-26-16, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

You seriously need to start actually watching games.

Cincinnati is absolutely atrocious.

Your numbers are handicapping you.

Does not change my point. Luck plays a bigger role when a game is condensed to two innings, so even if you have the worst bullpen in the league vs. the best bullpen in the league, the team with the shitty bullpen should not lose more than 67% of the time, so anything over +200 is good.

**No coincidences** · 04-26-16, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

Does not change my point. Luck plays a bigger role when a game is condensed to two innings, so even if you have the worst bullpen in the league vs. the best bullpen in the league, the team with the shitty bullpen should not lose more than 67% of the time, so anything over +200 is good.

According to who? What are you basing that analysis/conclusion on?

**blackHIPPY** · 04-26-16, 05:33 PM

Imagine watching a baseball game

**LT Profits** · 04-26-16, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

According to who? What are you basing that analysis/conclusion on?

How about common sense.

If you assume that the best team wins 100 games (full games) and the worst teams loses 100 games (full games), that means the 100-win team wins nine-inning games 61.7% or the time. What makes you think that percentage would go UP by 5% if the game is condensed to 2 innings?

**No coincidences** · 04-26-16, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

How about common sense.

If you assume that the best team wins 100 games (full games) and the worst teams loses 100 games (full games), that means the 100-win team wins nine-inning games 61.7% or the time. What makes you think that percentage would go UP by 5% if the game is condensed to 2 innings?

Because of the teams involved, where the game is being played, what kind of shape the bullpens are in, how teams have been hitting, etc., etc.

That's a very generic statement to make, which again doesn't surprise me given you don't actually watch games.

**LT Profits** · 04-26-16, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by No coincidences

Because of the teams involved, where the game is being played, what kind of shape the bullpens are in, how teams have been hitting, etc., etc.

That's a very generic statement to make, which again doesn't surprise me given you don't actually watch games.

No mater how you spin it, 5% is an unrealistic jump under any circumstance.

**dfish** · 04-26-16, 09:03 PM

Nelson pitched his balls off

**dfish** · 04-26-16, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by dfish

Nelson pitched his balls off

lol just realized this was Monday's thread