It says Bronson Arroyo's odds are higher than Gallardo's, forgive me if I'm not really putting much faith in those odds. We can certainly quibble over the exact odds but I think we all know, for several reasons, the odds of Gallardo winning the Cy Young are extremely low. He'll have to beat his performance projection, he'll have to pitch over 200 innings and he'll have to get lucky with his wins and losses (as most Cy Young winners seem to have to do). I think there's a good chance Gallardo could have an ERA under 3.5 but the 200+ innings thing is the big question mark, IMO. There is also a difference between me expecting it and me being surprised by it. I understand that. I didn't think my question suggested that. My question was, if you say that you wouldn't be surprised by it, what kind of odds justifies that kind of comment? It's just a pet peeve of mine when someone says they wouldn't be surprised if something happened in sports. Don't get me wrong, though, it's not as bad making a prediction that someone knows is not likely to occur. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Guys Rosenthal love to do that. Actually, it's a 3.3333(threes go on forever) percent chance if those odds are truly accurate. How dare I round down a third of one percent! Shame on me. Plus gambling odds aren't true odds, they are created to balance out the money as close as possible and create juice. They represent the average guess of thousands of people willing to back up their opinion with cash. Historically speaking, they do a pretty darn good job.