Point Blank – July 25
Election Betting, Lions and Cubs, oh my (a great way to start a week)…It may have been more about Caldwell’s calm that Cooter’s cunning in Detroit…The next 100 days may be the longest of Donald Trump's life...Jake Arrieta ramped up his curveball; Robin Ventura ran through his end-game bullpen...
This is going to be an rather busy week ahead, with the daily MLB bringing the added intrigue of the trading deadline (will Aroldis Chapman be sleeping in Chicago tonight); NFL camps about to open; a PGA tourney that not only comes out of a much tighter cycle following the British Open than the past, but also the likelihood of a Heat Index of over 100 for Thursday’s opening round (the weekend to follow does not look that bad); and today it is even time to add the U.S. General Election to the portfolio.
Since there is a lot of ground to cover the jukebox has been plugged in for a little background entertainment, and what could be more fitting in a rather unusual election cycle than to have Alice Cooper out on tour, his voice and stage energy holding up pretty well at 68. This one was from Nashville in early May -
First time to continue the run across key handicapping issues for each team as NFL 2016 approaches, today heading to Detroit, where Vincent Furnier happened to be born back in 1948.
Item: Just how real was the Matthew Stafford/Jim Bob Cooter splash
The Detroit surge in the second half of 20015 was most unlikely – the Lions went from 1-7, capped by a 45-10 burial vs. the Chiefs in London, to a 6-2 the rest of the way, and only a rather remarkable Aaron Rodgers Hail Mary throw kept that from being 7-1. The turnaround came after a bye week and some shuffling of the coaching staff, with the unheralded Jim Bob Cooter taking over as OC, and you can connect the dots between those wins and losses to the dynamic ascension in the passing game as Cooter and Mathew Stafford began working directly together -
CMP% YPP TD INT PR
First 8 64.5 6.97 13 11 84.1
Last 8 70.0 7.44 19 2 110.1
Cooter had been the QB coach with the Lions in 2014, but prior to that his resume was thin and rather unspectacular, certainly nothing indicating the kind of genius to make the kind of turn that the Lions did. Hence there is a question raised – was this so much about the tactics, or was it instead Jim Caldwell keeping the team composed during the bad times, and having them play hard down the stretch? Was it as much about effort as it was X’s and O’s? That closing 3-0 SU and ATS stretch came against the Saints, 49ers and Bears, three teams finishing off losing seasons that were not playing with a lot of spark.
Hence the question going forward – is there anything really special about the playbook, because outside of Stafford, who is talented but has never found consistency, the rest of the offense is rather pedestrian. And now they have to find a way to open up opposing defenses without Calvin Johnson commanding so much attention. The Lions did pretty well in adding Marvin Jones, but while he and Golden Tate are solid #2 guys, can either of them consistently beat the top cover CB from opposing defenses? The RB situation is similar – Ameer Abdullah and Theo Riddick are decent complimentary players, but there is not a true #1.
Stafford tried to spin it optimistically in the off-season - "We used to feature Calvin, and everybody kind of got theirs after that. I think it's going to be tougher for defenses, in a certain way, that they don't know who we're going to. There's no guy to key in on. … Calvin was a once-in-a-lifetime type player, a great talent, a great teammate. But at the same time, the guys that we have are pros, they're good players.”
That spin is assuming a first-rate playbook and the ability to dial up the right game-day calls. Is that a proper expectation, or is this an offense with below average talent and an inexperienced OC? I have an inclination that the late surge was more about Caldwell having the team play hard than anything special in terms of tactical adjustments, and they merely out-worked some struggling and disinterested opponents.
Time to put the Election “In the Sights…”
Much like in sports, timing is everything in the political markets, and the window between the Republican and Democratic national conventions brings an opportunity to step in – with plenty of -225 out there this morning, it is time to play the Democratic Party to win the U.S. General election in November.
Let’s note at the start that this is strictly about the betting markets, and not meant to be a discussion of personal politics. We have had a good thread going here about the various ebbs and flows of the marketplace, and kudos to all of you that have participated because it has never gone off the rails, which can so easily happen in an election year sparking a lot of passion, and indeed anger. Discussion on the betting aspect is encouraged here; if you want to delve into personal political preferences there are thousands of other forums available for that.
So why pull the trigger, and particularly now? We start with the base recent history and the changing demographics of the United States. There are 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have voted Democrat in each of the last six elections. Those states bring 242 Electoral College votes, which means that merely holding on to them, and adding Florida, the election goes to Hilary Clinton and the Democrats. For Donald Trump and the Republicans to win, they have to either sweep all “swing” states, or get most of them, and turn several of those previously “True Blue” states to “Red”. That is a difficult fundamental challenge, and I believe they came up short of what they needed to accomplish in Cleveland last week in terms of taking a necessary step forward. I believe it will turn out to be their high water mark, which makes the current betting value for the Democrats as good as it is likely going to get the remainder of the cycle. Now to the handicap…
Item: This now becomes about Donald Trump for the first time
Trump has been quite a phenomenon, emerging at a time in which there is a frustrated portion of the electorate looking for change. He became the agent of that audience, largely because he was available, an outlet that has not been there since the days of Ross Perot. Over the next three months I believe there will emerge a gap between the fact that he was available, and that he is the candidate that he is. And again note that this is a betting statement, not a personal political one.
What needed to happen in Cleveland was for the Republican Party to build a wall of support around Trump, but it did not happen. There was not much hint of a platform, or the kind of practical details that can help to sway undecided voters. As such it now becomes essentially Clinton and the Democratic Party against Trump, and not against a complex set of ideas or any kind of foundation. While Clinton is certainly not popular, even among her own supporters, the net favorability ratings for Trump show that he needs some help with those outside of his core audience. Hence the problems from Cleveland, the fashion show in which the clothes did not entirely fit.
What Trump needed to do was establish himself as being presidential in the eyes of undecided voters, and there was a finishing kick that was lacking. Most savvy leaders have a way of pointing out problems, and then bringing things around full circle to end with a positive message. I don’t believe either the convention as a whole, nor Trump’s Thursday speech, the stand-alone opportunity to make that happen, accomplished that. He did not connect the dots around to a “Morning in America” type of summation, and if he could not do that then, when he had the pulpit to both define himself to go on the offensive, the next three months become extremely difficult for him, having to instead play defense like he has never had to before. Especially if he is going to be short-handed on that defense, the rest of the party not fully standing behind him.
There was also an intriguing particular on that Thursday speech – in what was being billed as a rather iconic moment in contemporary U.S. history, the ratings fell flat. Admittedly measuring viewers is tougher in this multi-media age, but Trump only finished a slight tick above Mitt Romney’s 2012 speech, which had little anticipation or drama built in, and the ratings were far below John McCain’s 2008 speech. The buzz that they hoped to create, and the bounce they needed to get, may have come up far short.
Now the game changes, and there is a reason why the headline for this section was about this being the “first time” it becomes about Trump. He was not attacked in the early stages of the Republican primary cycle because he was not taken seriously by the other candidates. He was not attacked much in the latter stages because the other candidates did not want to offend a voting block that they needed. Now the attacks begin, and they will be ugly and often.
Item: So now it is attack vs. attack
This has the makings of an autumn played out in the gutters, with bitter attacks going back and forth. But I believe there is a key handicapping edge in play – Democrat attacks against Trump may appear to be fresh, and will be well-funded; Trump/Republican attacks against Clinton will be going back to a well in which the buckets have already been dipped often, and they may lack the funding to keep countering.
Clinton is vulnerable because she does not bring passion from her followers, the Democrats perhaps making a mistake long ago in believing she was better entrenched than she is. But while Benghazi and her e-mail scandal provide fodder for attack, she and a well-oiled political machine have had ample opportunity to prepare the defenses. That matters. Now it will be Trump facing a lot of personal attacks for the first time, and his temperament to handle such an episode is a genuine question, especially since it does not appear he will have a strong arm of Party support behind him. To this point his path has been about a core of voters wanting “change”, and rebelling against “politics as usual”. Now it genuinely becomes about Trump himself, and gaffes that he was able to get away with during the primaries, largely because his core audience was locked in almost regardless of his behaviors, will be much more expensive as the audience shifts.
Now the final point, and it is a major one – that notion of expense. Because Trump is such a non-traditional candidate, and has struggled to build the usual bridge with his Party, there is a substantial gap in cash on hand. That is going to be a lot to overcome. Hence why I believe Trump and the Republican Party needed to do a much better job by this stage of defining who he is, and who they are, offering a united front that the Democrats would have to run against. Instead Clinton and the Democrats were left with the opportunity to mostly run against Trump the individual, and with the substantial edge in the war chest, they will make it most uncomfortable for someone that has no real experience on this playing field, and who I believe will struggle to handle the pressure over the next 100 days. Hence based on the Electoral College map as it stands in 2016, and how ill-prepared the Trump organization may be for what is ahead, the Democrats at -225 or less are "In the Sights...", bring solid wagering value in this range (a shopper can find as low as -200 out there right now).
In The Sights, MLB…
Last Tuesday there was a focus here of Jake Arrieta’s struggles heading in to the All Star break, and whether an extended amount of time off was what the doctor ordered. It was, with a little curve being thrown in, literally. Now he gets to take the mound fresh again, having had five days off, and it opens the door for #917 Chicago Cubs Straight/Run Line (8:10 Eastern), with -185 or less for one-third of a position, and the Run Line for the remainder (you should be able to do -1.5 at -110). I’ll explain the splits in a moment.
Arrieta had a dominating outing against the Mets in which 25 of his first 27 pitches were strikes, and 63 of 85 for the full game were in the zone. By getting ahead of the hitters he was also able to work his curveball much more into the mix, 17.7 percent of all offerings, his season-high and far above the 12.1 prior to the break. Now he takes the mound with the league’s best defense behind him, and a bullpen that is well set – only Clayton Richard and Joe Nathan carry fatigue ratings, and if you are a Cub backer Nathan not being available is actually a good thing.
Meanwhile the White Sox pitching brings a mess both early and late. Miguel Gonzalez may be nearing his twilight, that 9-12/4.41 with the Orioles last year being followed up with a 2-5/4.41, and that is something that a right-hander does not easily survive at the age of 32 (lefties get a longer look, of course). This will be the second straight season that his BB/9 has set a career-high, and after being above the MLB average in HR/FB rate from 2013-2015, that favorable 9.1 percent so far this season may not hold up, hence why xFIP at 4.63 and SIERA at 4.71 may be the better reads on him. Then there is a bullpen that saw both Nate Jones and David Robertson work twice yesterday, which means some late-game headaches for Robin Ventura, especially after each struggled in their second stint.
Note the end-game problem for the White Sox is why one-third of the ticket is on the outright win. Ordinarily this would be all Run Line, but even if the Cubs do not break the game open, they can still gut out a close late win against the ChiSox relief corps. That is why I want at least a small portion of the play on the straight ticket, taking handicapping advantage of that particular weakness.
The complete Point Blank Archive
@PregamePhd (a work in progress, feedback appreciated)