[rake922]

What's the logic behind this?

[AgainstAllOdds]

I think the same thing can be asked for the celtics being 9-0 at home and 0-6 on the road...

[BuddyBear]

This is a theoretical question as opposed to a statistical question.

The most obvious answer is that they have a very strong home field in terms of the structural advantages that Fenway Park provides (i.e. familiarity among fielders) as well as their lineup which is built in such a way to succeed in that ballpark. Moreover, they have a very intense and loyal fan base thus creating a strong atmosphere and homefield where they may overperform compared with their road efforts.


However, one thing to keep in mind is that just because Boston has been "dominant" at home does not necessarily translate into financial success for their backers, in fact, you may find Boston to be a more profitable bet outside of Fenway Park. Let's consider for a moment 2007:

At home, Boston was 51-30 (62.96%, +$69). On the road they were 45-36 (55.55%, +$390). Cleary they were a better bet on the road than they were at home despite having a better overall record at home. Generally, Boston isn't a very profitable bet at home as they've burned their backers over the years. I think only three times in the past 10 years or so have they been profitable at home. Although this year, they look very sharp but realize you are going to pay a pretty penny if you want to continue backing them at home. At this point, I almost think there is no value left with Boston at home...you will routinely be expected to pay 20-30 cents more to back them at home than what they should be. Bortolo Colon being like -160 or is a perfect example of that the other day.....

[The HG]

It's an interesting question, and I will say that BB hit on most of the likely key points.

There may well be a negative psychological effect on the visitors playing in such an unusual park.

Another factor I would mention is that Boston has been a top team for a while now, and being a top team might magnify the advantage you get in baseball from playing at home. I wonder if/when the Red Sox turn into a bad team, if their unusual advantage when playing at home will hold. As opposed to, for instance, teams from Denver, where because of the altitude, they tend to have a stronger than normal edge at home, even when they are only average or below-average teams.

But as far as Boston at home, for the past few years, and right now, is concerned, I would definitely say that they have an unusual edge at home, but that that edge, in general, is an edge you pay a premium for in the lines.

Still, I do think Boston's strong play at home can be used to find value in their home games at times. They tend to be a huge favorite game after game at home of course, but because of that, I don't think the market differentiates perfectly when they are likely to have a huge home edge, and when they are likely to have a lesser home edge.

A very good example of this was actually yesterday's game with KC when Bannister was starting. Since Bannister has been very effective at times (and also has that enormous day/night disparity) and also since KC has been respectable in general this year, the huge dog line for them might have seemed like a good bet. But to me, it looked like the classic Boston home game with a huge line where the appearance of value with the road dog was a mirage. I'm not saying I was necessarily right, KC did make that good comeback in the late innings and only lost by 3, and I didn't bet Boston at around -200, but that's my take on it, and in no way did I consider betting on KC. In general, my sense is that Boston is in a particularly good position to win at home when those high-scoring shootouts happen.