This very expensive and very talented line up was only able to muster 86 wins against the baseball betting odds and even worse, they were never even really in the running for the baseball betting line post season.
Their hated rivals the Yankees clinched the division, and even the Blue Birds to North beat the Sox in the baseball betting odds record column with a late baseball betting line season surge. There is really no excuse why a team with such great players and such great resources should finish so far back, but then again, perhaps the curse of the Bambino is alive and well.
Putting together an 86-76 baseball betting line season would be a great accomplishment for most teams. However, the Boston Red Sox are not most teams and Sox baseball betting line fans are not “most” fans. The Red Sox nation is demanding better this year and if looks as if they might get it. In 2006 baseball betting line season, the Sox finished an unbelievable 11 games back. Simply not acceptable for roster that talented and not all that injured. Within the friendly confines of Fenway Park the Sox posted a pretty impressive baseball betting line 48-33 record. However, on the road they stunk. They bumbled to a 38-43 baseball betting line record on the road which explains their sub-par baseball betting odds record for the year. If the Sox want to make a run at another World Series trophy, which obviously they do, considering the amount of money they spent in free agency this baseball betting line season, they must get better on the road.
The 2006 win total was about ten games less than the win totals of 2005 baseball betting line season (95 wins) and 2004 (98 wins). Part of this was due to spotty pitching. Staff ace and forty year old relic Curt Schilling rebounded from a rough 2005 to produce a very productive baseball betting line year, although his ERA of 3.97 baseball betting odds was a little high for most people’s tastes. His power was still there and he looks to be a major contribute again in 2007 baseball betting line season. However, the same can’t be said for Josh Beckett. Beckett was one of the team’s costly free-agent signings before 2006 baseball betting line season and he stunk. After putting up some decent baseball betting odds numbers in Florida, it looked as though he would be the number one starter for years to come. However, he never really settled in, which could have simply been a product of changing leagues and pitching in a batter-friendly part at Fenway. Tim Wakefield was forced to carry a bigger load than any forty year-old knuckle baller should have to but he pitched decently.
The bright spot on the pitching staff in 2006 baseball betting line season was Jonathon Papelbon. He was almost un-hittable as flame throwing closer out of the pen last baseball betting line season. He’s now expected to move into the starting line up as probably the number four pitcher but many questions remain about whether he can throw the heat over six or seven innings and if his pitch repertoire is enough to keep batters hitting over that same stretch of innings. But this pitching staff with addition of Matsuzaka in the off-season, if everyone stays healthy and pitches even decently, will be absolutely scary. Matsuzaka should have great success early on as batters try and adjust to the new pitcher with supposedly 6 pitches in his arsenal including the mythical “gyro ball”. It should be much more fun to watch the staff this year than last baseball betting line year.
In the field and at the plate the Sox were solid in 2006 baseball betting line season. But that’s to be expected when you have two of the best hitters in baseball in the same lineup. Big Papi again put up huge baseball betting odds numbers and probably deserved to win the MVP, but was penalized because he plays the DH. And Manny, crazy, crazy Manny had another huge year. Look for the Sox to make a serious run at the World Series this baseball betting line year, on paper they are the team to beat. Much will depend on the pitching but how can you not expect these guys, with so much talent, not to produce?