Cases where the best team didn't win it.

• Laley23

  

  Footwedge;1210682 wrote:The Cavs were favored 6.25 to 1 in that series according to Bodog sports book. 6 to 1 is about as wide as the odds will ever get.
  
  "Cleveland is -625 to win the series, and should do it in 6."
  
  http://www.capperspicks.com/blog/nba/2009-magic-cavaliers-eastern-finals-playoff-picks/
  
  Not even the Baltimore Colts were a 6 to 1 favorite over the Namath Jets. (18 point favorites). I suppose the Jets upset was all about match ups too, eh?

  What were the Batimore Colts in the 2nd round of the playoffs?
  
  Odds go down when you go farther. I guarantee you can find a TON more favorites that have lost, if you go by sports betting odds.
• wes_mantooth

  

  What was the line on the osu/Florida game?
• sleeper

  

  wes_mantooth;1210690 wrote:What was the line on the osu/Florida game?

  OSU -7
• Footwedge

  Laley23;1210685 wrote:What were the Batimore Colts in the 2nd round of the playoffs?
  
  Odds go down when you go farther. I guarantee you can find a TON more favorites that have lost, if you go by sports betting odds.

  Did you read the link? The 6.25 to 1 was the Bodog line just before the Series started. FOR THAT SERIES ONLY. Not to win a title, just that series. If you wanted to bet the Cavs before the series started, then you had to lay $625 to win $100.
  
  Back in the mid 70's, the Washington Wizzards were 3 to 1 favorite to take it all against the GS Warriors. The Warriors won and if you google it, you will find that it is considered one of the biggest upsets ever. Yet....the Cavs were more than twice the favorite as the Warriors.
  
  But there's more. I guess this book had the Cavs at a full 8.5 to 1 favorites before the Series started.
  
  http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/05/nba-playoffs-eastern-western-conference-finals-series-odds-predictions-lakers-nuggets-magic-cavaliers/
  
  I guess Vegas didn't know about the "matches ups" LMAO.
  
  
  Orlando over Cavs....one of the biggest upsets in sports ever.
• Footwedge

  And from Betonline...all the reasons the Cavs were so heavily favored...
  
  http://www.betonline.com/sports-betting/basketball/cavaliers-magic-odds1
• Con_Alma

  Footwedge;1210703 wrote:...
  Back in the mid 70's, the Washington Wizzards were 3 to 1 favorite to take it all against the GS Warriors...

  Back in the 70s there was no Washington Wizards. They were they Washington Bullets.
• believer

  

  Curly J;1207733 wrote:1990 Reds. No way the should have beat the Bash Brothers A's.

  Wire-to-wire regular season and a dominating sweep of the Bash Bros. Nuff said
• Bob Dole

  Butler losing to Duke a few years ago in the title game. Butler was the better team.
• swamisez

  

  Bob Dole;1210893 wrote:Butler losing to Duke a few years ago in the title game. Butler was the better team.

  lolz
• Laley23

  

  Footwedge;1210703 wrote:Did you read the link? The 6.25 to 1 was the Bodog line just before the Series started. FOR THAT SERIES ONLY. Not to win a title, just that series. If you wanted to bet the Cavs before the series started, then you had to lay $625 to win $100.
  
  Back in the mid 70's, the Washington Wizzards were 3 to 1 favorite to take it all against the GS Warriors. The Warriors won and if you google it, you will find that it is considered one of the biggest upsets ever. Yet....the Cavs were more than twice the favorite as the Warriors.
  
  But there's more. I guess this book had the Cavs at a full 8.5 to 1 favorites before the Series started.
  
  http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/05/nba-playoffs-eastern-western-conference-finals-series-odds-predictions-lakers-nuggets-magic-cavaliers/
  
  I guess Vegas didn't know about the "matches ups" LMAO.
  
  
  Orlando over Cavs....one of the biggest upsets in sports ever.

  Federer over Sampras, Wimbledon 2001, 4th Round. Sampras was about a 9-1 favorite. That isnt even close to the biggest upset in tennis. So, again. Cavs losing is not close to the biggest upset in sports history.
• swamisez

  

  Bills Giants Superbowl in Tampa back in 91.
  
  Bills were heavily favored and should have finished off the Giants but they couldn't get the giants offense off the field. And of course Norwood.
• wildcats20

  

  Laley23;1211138 wrote:Federer over Sampras, Wimbledon 2001, 4th Round. Sampras was about a 9-1 favorite. That isnt even close to the biggest upset in tennis. So, again. Cavs losing is not close to the biggest upset in sports history.

  
  And look at how many long shots win in horse racing.
• I Wear Pants

  wes_mantooth;1207730 wrote:I am in the minority that believe that OKC is a better overall team than Miami, so I was I starting thinking about series or even just single games where the better team didn't win. My mind always goes back to the 95' Indians...which I believe were without a doubt the better team, but choked big time. Name some other "upsets"...it can be college, pro or even something like boxing(Douglas def Tyson comes to mind).
  
  I think there have been a ton of super bowl upsets like Giants over the Patriots the first time...and when the Seahawks lost in superbowl 40.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  I disagree because of these guys mostly.
• hasbeen

  

  Maddux: 19-2, 1.63 ERA
  Glavine: 16-7, 3.08 ERA
  Smoltz: 12-7, 3.18 ERA
  Wohlers: 7-3, 25 Saves, 2.09 ERA
  Clontz: 8-1, 4 saves, 3.65 ERA
  
  That's a tough pitching staff to go against.
• jmog

  I am a huge Indians fan, but we were not the better team in 1995. As stated above the Braves had one of, if not the best pitching staffs of all time on that team.
  
  However, in 1997 no way in God's Green Earth should the Marlins have beat the Indians.
• wes_mantooth

  

  I get the good pitching gets good hitting thing....but that 95 Indians offense had fucking Manny batting like 7th...lol. And we had Albert Belle with one of the best seasons ever....50 hr and 50 doubles. Of course he didn't win the MVP...lol
• jmog

  wes_mantooth;1211991 wrote:I get the good pitching gets good hitting thing....but that 95 Indians offense had ****ing Manny batting like 7th...lol. And we had Albert Belle with one of the best seasons ever....50 hr and 50 doubles. Of course he didn't win the MVP...lol

  No doubt the team was an offensive juggernaut, 6 of 9 (would have been 7 but Sandy Alomar got hurt and Pena was playing) guys batting over .300 for the season.
  
  The difference was that the Braves offense was dang good too (not that far below ours) with Chipper, McGriff, Javy Lopez, Klesko, and David Justice. Throw in their ungodly pitching staff and their overall team was slightly better.
• like_that

  

  wes_mantooth;1211991 wrote:I get the good pitching gets good hitting thing....but that 95 Indians offense had fucking Manny batting like 7th...lol. And we had Albert Belle with one of the best seasons ever....50 hr and 50 doubles. Of course he didn't win the MVP...lol

  
  It's a complete fucking joke Mo Vaugbn won MVP over Belle. Just an example of why journalists should not be voting.
  
  That MVP voting has to be the biggest robbery in any sport.
• Con_Alma

  jmog;1212044 wrote:No doubt the team was an offensive juggernaut, 6 of 9 (would have been 7 but Sandy Alomar got hurt and Pena was playing) guys batting over .300 for the season.
  
  The difference was that the Braves offense was dang good too (not that far below ours) with Chipper, McGriff, Javy Lopez, Klesko, and David Justice. Throw in their ungodly pitching staff and their overall team was slightly better.

  Bob Costas said it best when he stated the Cleveland Indians were the best team for 162 games that year and the Atlanta Braves were the best team for 6.
• jmog

  Con_Alma;1212286 wrote:Bob Costas said it best when he stated the Cleveland Indians were the best team for 162 games that year and the Atlanta Braves were the best team for 6.

  The reason, in baseball, that pitching wins in the playoffs and hitting wins in the season is simple.
  
  In the season starting pitchers are on a 5 man rotation, diluting the quality pitching.
  
  In the playoffs they are almost always on a 3 man rotation and then your 2 other starters are now the best middle relief man.
  
  So if a team has 3 stud starting pitchers, it trumps everything batting wise in baseball. I mean I'm not saying that if a team had 3 stud pitchers and a crap team they'd win every world series. However, if your offense and defense are good AND you have 3 stud pitchers you SHOULD win the series.
  
  The problem was that the Indians had mediocre pitching at best, they had really good to great defense and amazing hitting that year.
• Ironman92

  

  hasbeen;1211936 wrote:Maddux: 19-2, 1.63 ERA
  Glavine: 16-7, 3.08 ERA
  Smoltz: 12-7, 3.18 ERA
  Wohlers: 7-3, 25 Saves, 2.09 ERA
  Clontz: 8-1, 4 saves, 3.65 ERA
  
  That's a tough pitching staff to go against.

  
  Jesus....Maddux lol
• karen lotz

  

  Ironman92;1212328 wrote:Jesus....Maddux lol

  
  
• Ironman92

  

  karen lotz;1212367 wrote:

  
  My all-time favorite pitcher.
• karen lotz

  

  Ironman92;1212384 wrote:My all-time favorite pitcher.

  
  Mine too, I wore 31 for baseball because of him.
• wes_mantooth

  

  like_that;1212282 wrote:It's a complete fucking joke Mo Vaugbn won MVP over Belle. Just an example of why journalists should not be voting.
  
  That MVP voting has to be the biggest robbery in any sport.

  yeah, it is crazy that anyone other than Belle was even considered. Shows what an asshole he was to the media.