(Bank)Roll Tide!

Alabama head baseball coach Brian Bohannon was fired Friday, May 4. The firing occurred, allegedly, because Bohannon had (once again, allegedly) been involved in the placing of some sizable wagers against his own team and on LSU, which was playing Alabama. I say "been involved in," using passive voice, because evidently he didn't make the wagers himself. To put this in a Cliff Notes context, Alabama has a really good baseball team, but LSU is a top five outfit and arguably as good as anyone.

The trick to his wager was that Bohannon switched starting pitchers before the game, plugging in an inferior pitcher. The pitcher originally scheduled to start had back tightness, a legitimate reason to be scratched, and was Alabama's ace. This meant that an LSU bettor would have, at worst, a really, really helpful and inappropriate line. At best, if the switching of the pitchers became public sufficiently before game time but after the wager was made, the bettor might possibly have an arbitrage opportunity by betting LSU early and Alabama late after the number had moved.

In the last 24 hours, more details have become public involving the person who placed the bet(s) for Bohannon. Evidently, Bohannon is no genius, as he contacted the person physically placing the bets by using his own phone, which is Alabama property. Duh and double duh.

The Fallout

So now everyone is wondering if all college sports are invisibly laced with similar plotlines and relationships. Well, Mormons aren't big on gambling (allegedly), so maybe BYU gets a pass, but the answer to the question is that it's certainly possible. And media covering this story, to my knowledge, haven't even touched on an easy, oblique way for underpaid college coaches, especially assistants, to profit from very, very gray machinations that are, basically, impossible to prevent.

I'll let readers ponder the possibilities and will open my June blogs with a paint-by-numbers explanation as to how college assistants could be making a few bucks from betting without directly wagering on teams. Stay tuned.

Bob Dietz

May 27, 2023

LIV and Super Bowl III

With Brooks Koepka capturing the 2023 PGA Championship at Oak Hill with a dominant tour de force, it's time for me to saddle my bragging horse and spout off. We handicappers like explaining how we were right  and others were wrong, so I'll get right to it.

Back in 2022, many loud-mouthed golf pundits tried to blister Koepka, DeChambeau, Dustin Johnson, and Mickelson with nonsensical bad-mouthing. American and international media were flooded with pro-PGA propagandists posing as moralists. The cacophony of LIV criticism (as Howard Cosell might have said) was outlandish, well beyond mean-spirited, and laden with declarative absurdities. 

I laid out my defense of both the LIV tour in general, and Brooks Koepka in particular, in a series of July articles. I recommend readers check out the 2022 series:  "The Saudi Golf Tour (Part One)" from July 3; July 4's "The Comedic Writings of Eamon Lynch," and my July 5 "The Saudi Golf Tour (Part Two)."

The bottom line is that hired hacks like Eamon Lynch were proven wrong, and wrong by a wide margin. When it came time for major championships, Koepka and Mickelson tied for second in the 2023 Masters, and three LIV golfers cracked the top nine at Oak Hill. There is no questioning the quality of LIV golf. And there should also be no questions regarding the decision-making of Koepka, DeChambeau, Cam Smith, Dustin Johnson, and Mickelson. Koepka and DeChambeau undoubtedly benefited from the LIV schedule and workload in coming back from their serious injuries. They were able to rehab at their own, optimal pace. They are back, and it would be difficult to find fault in the processes that brought them to this point.

Super Bowl III

Rory McIlroy seems to have put away his PGA pom poms and cheerleading outfit for the moment. As I said in 2022, who the hell is McIlroy to comment on who should be facing what kind of competition? Could you imagine rookie Joe Namath turning down a 400K AFL bonus because the NFL was presumed to have better players?

I won't lie. I rooted for Koepka down the stretch Sunday. He was pulling his own version of Super Bowl III, and he was magnificent. Frankly, during his second round, Koepka could easily have scored three or four strokes better than he did. He was right there on every hole. He dominated.

The question I have for the Eamon Lynch crowd is whether they actually believed the mendacious tripe they were writing? Or were they just defaming the LIVers to coddle favor with establishment golf institutions? Either way, Lynch and his ilk should publicly apologize. Not for being moral absolutists, but for being so goddamn wrong that they look silly. It's hard to be any more wrong than Lynch.

He'll learn, I suppose. There's nothing dumber than propagandists who make actual public predictions.

Bob Dietz

May 23, 2023

NBA Anomaly

I rarely bet the NBA. Maybe once a decade I take an NBA future, and these have worked out well, but unless I see something making me an offer I cannot refuse, I steer clear.

I do, however, scan the playoff box scores and such, and at the conclusion of the Monday, May 1st games, I realized that I was looking at a truly anomalous set of statistics, about as rare as death by reptile.

My discovery went something like this. The Sixers had upset the Celtics in Game One of their best-of-seven. I decided to glance through the numbers and see how a Philly team without Embiid had done it. The result itself hadn't been terribly surprising, as I felt any team with an X-factor like Harden has a shot in any given game. But these stats, they were truly something else.

The Numbers

First I looked at Boston's field goal percentage. They had lost; maybe they had an off night from the floor. I gagged. They had shot 58.7% from the field. Holy hell. Teams almost never lose shooting  58.7% from the floor, especially in playoff games. 

Next I thought, "Well, maybe they bricked some free throws or perhaps they just didn't shoot many." I halfway choked. The Celtics had shot 94.4%, making 17 of 18. The Sixers had shot just 12, making all of them.

Okay, so how did Boston lose? The next theory was that maybe Philly killed them on the boards. Nope. Boston outrebounded the Sixers by 10, 38 to 28. Yowza and double yowza.

I had never seen a team at any level, high school, college, or professional, pull off that statistical trifecta and lose a game. Boston shot almost 59% from the floor, 94.4% from the line while shooting more free throws, and had a plus-10 rebound margin. And lost. Unbelievable. I was looking at stats that may never be repeated by a losing NBA team again.

What Does It Mean?

Damned if I know. It's a massive statistical anomaly. When the Allegheny, the Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers join, this kind of statistical confluence should result in a one-sided win for Boston. Amazing.

As to what happens next (and Game Two is in progress as I write this), well, if Boston puts up numbers like that every game, they should win every game. With Embiid returning and Harden still an X-Man, however, I can't bet on it. Or maybe I can.

All I know for certain is that I will likely never again see stats like that conjoined with a result like that in my lifetime. It's always good to recognize a white crow when you see one.

Bob Dietz

May 3, 2023