Yesterday's play got rained out. Today, the play was on the UNDER 9/12 in the Twins/Royals game (just like yesterday). There was a 62 star differential, and the Estimator had the game going under by 7/10th's of a run.

In the NHL, Anaheim has a 50 star differential to cover the puck line (+1.5/-175), but the Estimator has the Stars winning by 2/10th's of a goal, so technically, that's not a play. However, the Ducks had 51 stars to 1, so I'm interested in seeing how the teams/totals with 50 stars or more perform ATS.

There are also 50 stars for the game to go UNDER, and none for the Over. The Estimator has the game going UNDER by 9/10th's of a goal. Since Sunday, all of the plays I tracked were on the totals until today.

We'll see how it goes.

when doing your star adding on the totals, you have to examine any over or unders that are listed under STATFOX SUPER SITUATIONS as they will have doubles listed. Example below is on the San Fran/Pittsburgh game today (Apr 24)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play Over - Road teams where the total is 8.5 or less (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), where team's hitters draw 4 walks or more/game on the season.
(80-42 since 1997.) (65.6%, +34.3 units. Rating = 3*)

Play Over - Road teams where the total is 7 to 8.5 (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), where team's hitters draw 4 walks or more/game on the season.
(80-42 since 1997.) (65.6%, +34.3 units. Rating = 3*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play Over - Road teams where the total is 8.5 or less (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), stranding 7.5 or more runners on base per game on the season.
(91-52 since 1997.) (63.6%, +35.2 units. Rating = 3*)

Play Over - Road teams where the total is 7 to 8.5 (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), stranding 7.5 or more runners on base per game on the season.
(91-52 since 1997.) (63.6%, +35.2 units. Rating = 3*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play Over - Road teams where the total is 8.5 or less (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), with a team on base percentage of .390 or better on the season (NL).
(34-12 over the last 5 seasons.) (73.9%, +20.8 units. Rating = 3*)

Play Over - Road teams where the total is 7 to 8.5 (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), with a team on base percentage of .390 or better on the season (NL).
(34-12 over the last 5 seasons.) (73.9%, +20.8 units. Rating = 3*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't want you to go doing a bunch of work, only to find out that there's many the same and have to be checked . Only found this in that section. Thanks for the work you're doing on trying to come up with something from the sheets. GL

Jake,

Thanks for the heads up, but I didn't see any doubles. There are some similar angles, but they usually have different codicils. For example (same game):

Play Over - Road teams where the total is 8.5 or less (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), where team's hitters draw 4 walks or more/game on the season.
(80-42 since 1997.) (65.6%, +34.3 units. Rating = 3*)
Play Over - Road teams where the total is 8.5 or less (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), stranding 7.5 or more runners on base per game on the season.
(91-52 since 1997.) (63.6%, +35.2 units. Rating = 3*)

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this. Also, due to time constraints, it's easier for me to go through each section-Super Situations, Matchup Power Trends, and Situational Power Trends-from top to bottom, and just note the number of stars listed in the gray field.

Forget that. I DID see the doubles. Thanks.

But then again ...

Play Over - Road teams where the total is 8.5 or less (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), where team's hitters draw 4 walks or more/game on the season.
(80-42 since 1997.) (65.6%, +34.3 units. Rating = 3*)

Play Over - Road teams where the total is 7 to 8.5 (SAN FRANCISCO) - with a starting pitcher with poor control (more than 2.75 BB's/start), where team's hitters draw 4 walks or more/game on the season.
(80-42 since 1997.) (65.6%, +34.3 units. Rating = 3*)

Same percentage, but different conditions.

personally, I take that as the same.....where the total is 7 to 8.5 and where the total is 8.5 or less. The % age's are the same but so is the actual outcome (80-42 since 1997.) It's too bad one can be rated with a star rating and not the other. There was also a situation in yesterday's game (Thurs Apr 24) with Yankees and Anaheim.

NY YANKEES are 9-0 (+9.0 Units) against the money line vs. an excellent bullpen whose ERA is 3.00 or better this season.

NY YANKEES are 9-0 (+9.0 Units) against the money line vs. an excellent bullpen whose ERA is 3.25 or better this season.

NY YANKEES are 9-0 (+9.0 Units) against the money line vs. an excellent bullpen whose ERA is 3.50 or better this season.

I actually had to change the 3.25 and 3.50 because I don't remember the actual #'s, as I only used the 3.00.So when adding up the star's for Yankees, two of these situations should be eliminated in my opinion. I'm really going through these sheet's with a fine tooth comb, and I'm noticing that quite a few star's can be eliminated. I really believe that with all these stat's on this great site, that the golden egg could possibly be in there somewhere. I'm the type that when I focus in on something, I look under every rock.....and there's many rock's to turn over. GL and I'm sure with everyone's effort we'll come up with something really good from the work we put in. When I say really good, I mean besides Nick's Star System which we already know about and is great. Thanks

there's no star's on any of these ratings, but there could be. Why not just have under the lowest, which would be .245.

LOS ANGELES is 6-1 UNDER (+5.0 Units) vs. an NL team with a team batting average of .245 or worse this season.
The average score was LOS ANGELES 2.8, OPPONENT 3.0 - (Rating = 0*)

LOS ANGELES is 6-1 UNDER (+5.0 Units) vs. an NL team with a team batting average of .250 or worse this season.
The average score was LOS ANGELES 2.8, OPPONENT 3.0 - (Rating = 0*)

LOS ANGELES is 6-1 UNDER (+5.0 Units) vs. an NL team with a team batting average of .255 or worse this season.
The average score was LOS ANGELES 2.8, OPPONENT 3.0 - (Rating = 0*)

Jake,

I can see your point more clearly now, but I don't have the time to weed through all of the stars to find those dupes. And remember, I just started experimenting with Nick's Star System to see if it's just as effective with totals. I still look at conventional stats (ERA last three, WHIP, Team vs. lefties, hits-per-game, etc.), so when there's a full slate of games like tonight, it could take up a good part of my day. The examples you gave are good ones, and it does seem like splitting hairs in some instances. But for the moment, I'll stick with using all of the stars for purposes of the experiment.