Historically vs Situationally

Now that MLB is a couple weeks into the season, I wanted to go over two topics that seem to be the deciding factors that tend to swing a bettor one way versus the other.

With about a two week sample size and reaching back to the 2017 season, a lot of statistics come out every day showing different trends about various teams, pitchers, even umpires. These stats can be found on just about every platform that is betting or sports tip based such as "Giants are 9-1 hitting the under when Mike Winters is behind the plate" for example. Historically, that is 100% a fact (for sake of the argument). There is no re-writing "history" and in this case no one can argue that. However, "historical" events do not dictate the future "situation" of an outcome such as the Giants under with Mike Winters behind the plate. It is important to keep history in mind, but it is equally important to understand the situations that made that 9-1 under trend possible. This is where situational betting comes into play and in my eyes should always be chosen over historical statistics.

Here is what I mean by that. Do your homework and go through those 10 games in which the under hit 9 times to determine what situations made 9 out of 10 outcomes the same. Were there offensive injuries during those 10 games such a Buster Posey being out? Were all 10 games matchups between #1 or #2 starters for each team who hold low ERA's? Did the stars align and each time Winters was behind the plate happen to be each teams 6th game in 7 days leaving players fatigued at the plate, but pitchers still on their normal 5 days rest? If you can't tell where I am going with this, I'll leave you with these last statements.

Before taking the Giants under today, ask yourself does the situation for the two teams mirror that of the previous 9 unders. No matter what statistic you read that shows something has happened historically, does not meant that the next event will be held in the same situation.

-Prophet