Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 31, 2008

WORLD SERIES ODDS: Tigers not the favorites to win it all; Red Sox picked to repeat

Picked?

Boston Red Sox 9-2
New York Mets 5-1
New York Yankees 11-2
Los Angeles Angels 15-2
Detroit Tigers 8-1

Jim Furtado Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:12 PM | 54 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: general

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Craig Calcaterra Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:22 PM (#2680755)
I think that Mets line is designed to lure still-Santana-drunk Mets fans into the action. I mean, yeah, they're probably the favorites in the East, but Arizona, Philadelphia, and Colorado aren't going anywhere, and I'd take all four of the AL teams listed there over the Mets.

/betting on baseball is wrong
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:22 PM (#2680756)
Baltimore Orioles 150-1
Kansas City Royals 150-1
Pittsburgh Pirates 150-1
Tampa Bay Rays 150-1
Washington Nationals 200-1


So you're saying there's a chance!

I'm really surprised Baltimore and Tampa Bay aren't longer shots than Washington.
   3. flournoy Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:26 PM (#2680759)
Me too. Washington isn't that bad. Well, I haven't taken a really close look, but I don't think they are.
   4. Chris Needham Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:30 PM (#2680763)
They're not. They're probably a .500 team.

But .500 in that division gets you 4th place.
   5. rfloh Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:33 PM (#2680767)
Tampa isn't all that bad either. Tampa has all that young talent. They traded Delmon to improve their D, starting and relief pitching. They signed Percival to improve the pen. Delmon, for all his potential, was mediocre both offensively and defensively last year.

Yeah, Washington got Milledge, but the crappy pitching still hasn't improved, and Milledge in 2008 isn't going to be that big of an improvement over Church.
   6. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:35 PM (#2680769)
Tampa isn't all that bad either.

I don't think so either, they could win 75 games or so, but there's no way they even make the playoffs with Boston and New York and Toronto ahead of them.

Washington plays in the NL where anything can happen.
   7. Sam M. Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:35 PM (#2680770)
I mean, yeah, they're probably the favorites in the East, but Arizona, Philadelphia, and Colorado aren't going anywhere, and I'd take all four of the AL teams listed there over the Mets.

The problem with betting on any single AL team as a favorite is the rougher road they have getting there. Do you really think (for example) that the Angels have a better chance to win the World Series than the Mets, knowing that they'd have to beat two AL teams first just to get there, both of whom you (presumably) think are better than the Mets -- and then ALSO beat the NL team in the WS itself?

So even if you'd take the Angels head-to-head, you wouldn't necessarily make them a more likely choice to win the WS. And that assumes you think the Angels are something close to a lock to win the AL West. The case is even stronger for the Tigers and Indians, who have a rougher road even to get to the post-season, because one of them (or one of the Yankees or Red Sox) isn't gonna make it at all.

Of course, I happen to think the balance of power is beginning to shift back, what with Santana and Haren moving, and the Dodgers, Brewers', and Diamondbacks' kids getting a year older and better. So I strongly suspect the play-off marches might be a bit more balanced this year than they have been the past couple of seasons.
   8. Chris Needham Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:36 PM (#2680771)
No, but Dukes and Pena will be an improvement over the 500 ABs they tossed in Langerhans' and Nook Logan's directions. I'd expect a slight improvement from Kearns, and every other position to hold about the same.

Getting out of RFK will make the bats "improve" to about a league-average offense.

Your point holds about the pitching, of course. But they're relying on some younger arms now, so there's at least the potential of some improvement, even if we're likely to see far too much of Mike Bacsik at some point this summer.
   9. Bad Doctor Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:37 PM (#2680772)
The Dodgers and D-Backs look like good value, Reds as a longer shot. Offhand, I'd say that the Dodgers are better than the Blue Jays straight up, but even if you think the Jays are a bit better, their respective roads to the championship make the Dodgers a much better bet, so I don't understand why they have longer odds.

I don't know if 200-1 is right for the Nats, but they definitely shouldn't be in 30th place. Hell, I think they should get better odds than every AL team south of the Mariners on this list, plus a few of the NL teams.
   10. Shooty is obsessed with the latest hoodie Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:38 PM (#2680774)
Man, I like the Dodgers at 22-1. They're a good, deep team and they have the chips to make trades for what they need at the break. Forget them at your peril this year.
   11. SoSH U at work Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:39 PM (#2680775)
I find it hard to believe any NL team can genuinely have worse odds than Baltimore or other suspected AL bottom feeders. With five of the presumed best teams in the AL, it's got to be a lot less likely for Baltimore or KC to grab a playoff spot than it would be for Washington or Pittsburgh.
   12. Jefferson Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:46 PM (#2680783)
All right, the Giants are only 85-1! Not the worst on the list, woohoo!!
   13. WhoWantsTeixeiraDessert Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:51 PM (#2680786)
By this listing, I'd say Washington should certainly be ahead of San Francisco, and probably closer to Cincinnati and Houston.
   14. Rodder Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:52 PM (#2680788)
Looks to me like the "value" is in NL teams other than then the Mets (and possibly Cubs).
   15. The Original SJ Posted: January 31, 2008 at 04:53 PM (#2680789)
I like the Red Sox chances of winning the AL Pennant, but at 7/5, how can you bet them?
   16. rfloh Posted: January 31, 2008 at 05:10 PM (#2680805)
Washington plays in the NL where anything can happen.


As Chris Needham points out, they do play in the NL East. Not that the NL East is anything great, but there are 3 teams with more talented squads ahead of them. One of those 3 teams is also a big payroll team.
   17. realteamcoach Posted: January 31, 2008 at 05:10 PM (#2680806)
I know this sounds crazy, but I find good value in San Fran. Last year I got Colorado. I go on the assumption that: Don't bet on anyone in a great division (knocks out AL East, NL East, AL Central)...don't bet on a sleeper in a division with at least 2 good teams (knocks out NL Central). That leaves the West divisions. The A's have no chance at the playoffs, and Texas doesn't have the pitching to make the playoffs, so that knocks out the AL West. In the NL West, everybody will beat up everybody, and San Fran's pitching could keep them alive enough to win 86 games, and thus the division.

Call me crazy, but I am taking the Giants and Dodgers on bets for the World Series.
   18. realteamcoach Posted: January 31, 2008 at 05:11 PM (#2680809)
Also, how is Seattle 35-1...I think they have a 35% chance to win the division...that alone gives them a chance, and I wouldn't want to face Hernandez and possibly Bedard in a playoff series.
   19. Sparkles Peterson Posted: January 31, 2008 at 05:13 PM (#2680811)
I'm surprised the Astros aren't a little higher. Plenty of people seem to be delusional about how good they are going to be.
   20. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2008 at 05:20 PM (#2680820)
Astros? Are there just a lot of Houstonians (?) who bet on baseball?

I like the Phillies at 20-1 best. And Cincinnati for a longshot.
   21. The Original SJ Posted: January 31, 2008 at 05:24 PM (#2680825)
Which book in Vegas offers the over/under on wins and losses?
   22. Belfry Bob Posted: January 31, 2008 at 05:52 PM (#2680851)
As a few pointed out, this isn't about team quality, it's about getting people to bet. The Nats and D-Backs have small fan bases, so the longer odds might get SOMEONE to bet on them.

I watched the Nats a lot last year...I don't see .500 coming from them. Maybe if they weren't playing the Mets, Braves, and Phillies all the time. Maybe.

Their pitching is horrible.
   23. Chris Needham Posted: January 31, 2008 at 05:59 PM (#2680859)
And an Orioles fan knows horrible pitching when he sees it!
   24. Belfry Bob Posted: January 31, 2008 at 06:05 PM (#2680867)
Yes he does...and the Nats is even worse.:)
   25. Walt Davis Posted: January 31, 2008 at 06:11 PM (#2680874)
I think that Mets line is designed to lure still-Santana-drunk Mets fans into the action. I mean, yeah, they're probably the favorites in the East, but Arizona, Philadelphia, and Colorado aren't going anywhere, and I'd take all four of the AL teams listed there over the Mets.

We know it's been a while since we called, but the Chicago Cubs say hello.

So I strongly suspect the play-off marches might be a bit more balanced this year than they have been the past couple of seasons.

We know we no longer deserve the designation as a major league, in fact we're not certain any of our teams could win the Dominican Winter League title, but we would like to point out that the National League did win the World Series as recently as 2006.
   26. Sam M. Posted: January 31, 2008 at 06:36 PM (#2680900)
we would like to point out that the National League did win the World Series as recently as 2006.

Kind of besides the point, Walt. The issue of how hard it is to get there through the play-offs is separate and apart from then winning the damned thing. The AL team -- whichever one survives -- has to do both. The NL team only has to win the WS. You can believe that the NL team has an easier road, and that it may then win some of the time as the underdog -- as the Cardinals did in 2006.

My point is that I think the roads are getting to be more equal.
   27. Mushroy Posted: January 31, 2008 at 06:51 PM (#2680921)
I'm not really a gambler (depressing lack of expendable income). Anyone know what the Rockies odds were last year? I'm guessing they had Vegas defecating bricks...
EDIT-I never bothered trying to swear in a post before. Very surprised my original term for "defecating" got past the nanny...
   28. Boots Day Posted: January 31, 2008 at 07:00 PM (#2680933)
The Rockies are tied for seventh among National League teams. People realize they were in the World Series last year, right? That they're still a young team? That they didn't lose anyone of note?

I don't expect to see them winning the 2008 World Series either, but I can't imagine why anyone would think the Cubs or Braves have a better chance.
   29. The Original SJ Posted: January 31, 2008 at 07:03 PM (#2680935)
I'm not really a gambler (depressing lack of expendable income). Anyone know what the Rockies odds were last year? I'm guessing they had Vegas defecating bricks...

I doubt it, because they are keeping all the Yankee money (and have been for quite a few years)
   30. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 31, 2008 at 07:03 PM (#2680936)
I don't expect to see them winning the 2008 World Series either, but I can't imagine why anyone would think the Cubs or Braves have a better chance.

They don't; they just think that more people will bet on the Cubs or Braves, all else being equal.
   31. Boots Day Posted: January 31, 2008 at 07:05 PM (#2680937)
I understand that. It's not Vegas that baffles me; it's people who would bet on the Cubs or the Braves.
   32. Spahn Insane, stimulus-funded BurlyMan™ Posted: January 31, 2008 at 07:09 PM (#2680946)
They don't; they just think that more people will bet on the Cubs or Braves, all else being equal.

Actually, I'd say the Cubs *do* have a better chance than the Rox, if for no other reason than their division being easier, which means their chances of reaching the postseason in the first place are probably better. (Same can't really be said of the Braves.) The Rox *might* be a better team than the Cubs, but in terms of likelihood of getting to the dance, they're definitely not enough better to offset the Cubs' advantage of playing in the Central.
   33. realteamcoach Posted: January 31, 2008 at 07:30 PM (#2680969)
Anyone know what the Rockies odds were last year?


I got them at 40-1 in early January on Bodog.
   34. Boots Day Posted: January 31, 2008 at 07:41 PM (#2680980)
I got them at 40-1 in early January on Bodog.

Was that to win the WS, or just to win the NL pennant? I would have thought their odds to win the WS would be longer than that.
   35. MSI Posted: January 31, 2008 at 08:01 PM (#2681004)
Yes~ 5% chance for the Blue Jays to win the world series. That's actually better than I thought...I'd figure most pundits would put them at 5-10 for the playoffs...but this team is structured well for the playoffs anyway.
   36. shoewizard Posted: January 31, 2008 at 09:20 PM (#2681101)
I put down 200 bucks on the D Backs last year at 75-1 to win the W.S. (Most of the sports books had them 60-1, and then I saw 75-1 so I grabbed it). I was sitting pretty till the NLCS. Ha ha.

I don't see that kind of a bet in there this year. Maybe 20 bucks on the Reds at 55-1. But thats about it.
   37. CrosbyBird Posted: January 31, 2008 at 09:48 PM (#2681137)
I understand that. It's not Vegas that baffles me; it's people who would bet on the Cubs or the Braves.

The Rockies needed an incredible run and a fairly serious collapse by the Padres (who ended the season 4-7) just to reach the play-in game.

In a three team scrum, going 14-1 at the end of the season wasn't enough to be in the playoffs without the play-in game. I don't see the Rockies being that lucky (and any 14-1 stretch involves luck) in 2008.
   38. Boots Day Posted: January 31, 2008 at 10:05 PM (#2681170)
The Rockies needed an incredible run and a fairly serious collapse by the Padres (who ended the season 4-7) just to reach the play-in game.

That season-ending run breaks down as 0-4 against the Rockies and 4-3 against everyone else (and you're counting the play-in game in there; the Padres had to "collapse" to 4-6 to create the playoff game). They didn't so much collapse as get caught by a red-hot team.

In a three team scrum, going 14-1 at the end of the season wasn't enough to be in the playoffs without the play-in game. I don't see the Rockies being that lucky (and any 14-1 stretch involves luck) in 2008.

I don't see why going 14-1 at the end of the season is any luckier than the Cubs going 10-1 in June and July, or the Diamondbacks going 11-1 in May and June. Every team that wins anything is going to have a hot streak; why is it luckier if it comes at the end of the season?

I'm not saying they were a great team, but the 2007 Rockies were clearly as good as any other team in the National League.
   39. CrosbyBird Posted: January 31, 2008 at 10:15 PM (#2681183)
I don't see why going 14-1 at the end of the season is any luckier than the Cubs going 10-1 in June and July, or the Diamondbacks going 11-1 in May and June. Every team that wins anything is going to have a hot streak; why is it luckier if it comes at the end of the season?

Because 14-1 is further from the overall record of the Rockies than 10-1 was from the Cubs or 11-1 from the Diamondbacks. I don't really care when the streak came. If it was the first 15 games of the season, I would have said "the Rockies barely made the playoffs despite an incredible lead they built to start the season with a fluky 14-1 streak."

I'm not saying they were a great team, but the 2007 Rockies were clearly as good as any other team in the National League.

Look at the last 3 years for that franchise and tell me if you think the 2007 Rockies performance exceeded the talent on the roster. The Rockies might not even be a .500 team next year (although it will be nice to face the Giants 18 or 19 times).
   40. MNB Posted: February 01, 2008 at 12:19 AM (#2681291)
The Rockies needed an incredible run and a fairly serious collapse by the Padres (who ended the season 4-7) just to reach the play-in game.

They were also helped by a very serious collapse by the Mets.
   41. Rafael Bellylard: The Grinch of Orlando. Posted: February 01, 2008 at 12:41 AM (#2681297)
I would happily take the Angels at 15/2. They have the best chance to win their division due to the weakness of the other teams in it. And we've all seen that if you can get into the playoffs, you have a shot.
   42. John DiFool2 Posted: February 01, 2008 at 01:10 AM (#2681315)
I like the Phillies at 20-1 best.


I remember a Bill James study on "unbalanced" teams (great hitting/crappy pitching or vice versa). He found the unbalanced teams won more the next year than did comparable "balanced" teams.
   43. John DiFool2 Posted: February 01, 2008 at 01:15 AM (#2681319)
Oh and BTW the cumulative odds add up to 151%, pretty substantial vigorish...
   44. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: February 01, 2008 at 01:40 AM (#2681337)
They were also helped by a very serious collapse by the Mets.


Only in the sense that it gave them additional hope down the stretch. But the Rockies finished with a better record than Philly, so they still would have qualified for the play-in game regardless what the Mets did.

The Rockies finished with the second-best actual record and the best pyth record in the NL, then steamrolled two teams in the NL playoffs. I don't know how anyone could conclude that at season's end, they weren't legitimately the best team in the NL.
   45. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: February 01, 2008 at 01:46 AM (#2681344)
JDF2,

That seemed excessive to me so I checked and I get 152%. Amazing.

What I don't get is that these aren't the actual odds but the suggestion. Why would the "suggestion" have such onerous fees?
   46. bibigon Posted: February 01, 2008 at 01:57 AM (#2681347)

Because 14-1 is further from the overall record of the Rockies than 10-1 was from the Cubs or 11-1 from the Diamondbacks. I don't really care when the streak came. If it was the first 15 games of the season, I would have said "the Rockies barely made the playoffs despite an incredible lead they built to start the season with a fluky 14-1 streak."


The real question is why you care about the distribution of the wins at all.
   47. Boots Day Posted: February 01, 2008 at 02:23 AM (#2681358)
Only in the sense that it gave them additional hope down the stretch. But the Rockies finished with a better record than Philly, so they still would have qualified for the play-in game regardless what the Mets did.

Not only that, but the Met collapse included an 0-7 record against the Phillies after August 25. (During that same stretch, they were 15-12 aginst the rest of the league.) If the Mets had managed to win a couple of those games, it's the Phillies who wouldn't have made it, not the Rockies.
   48. resultsDisoriented Posted: February 01, 2008 at 02:35 AM (#2681361)
What I don't get is that these aren't the actual odds but the suggestion. Why would the "suggestion" have such onerous fees?

short answer: because people will pay them. why offer a product at a discount when people will pay full price?

long answer: also, if you offer all the longshot teams at close to fair odds, you can end up with a very imbalanced book at the end of the year, and sportsbooks would usually prefer to avoid this spot.

for example, as it stands now, the books will have to pay out a lot more in futures wagers if the giants win the super bowl, rather than the patriots. this is because the giants were offered at 40-1 at the start of the playoffs, while many places paid out 1-4 ($1 for every $4 risked) on the pats. obviously the typical tourist is more inclined to bet a 40-1 shot than a 1-4.

this is part of the reason that the super bowl moneyline is only patriots -420, when you would ordinarily expect a 12 point favorite to be about -600. the reduced price will hopefully attract action on the pats and balance their book.
   49. resultsDisoriented Posted: February 01, 2008 at 02:36 AM (#2681363)
I would happily take the Angels at 15/2. They have the best chance to win their division due to the weakness of the other teams in it. And we've all seen that if you can get into the playoffs, you have a shot.

the average playoff team is a 7/1 dog to win the world series.
   50. resultsDisoriented Posted: February 01, 2008 at 02:42 AM (#2681364)
I'm not really a gambler (depressing lack of expendable income). Anyone know what the Rockies odds were last year? I'm guessing they had Vegas defecating bricks...

i doubt it. most people who bet on a team to win the world series are fans of the team, and the rockies aren't popular enough to have attracted a lot of bets.

they were going off at 100/1 to win it all.

Yes~ 5% chance for the Blue Jays to win the world series. That's actually better than I thought...I'd figure most pundits would put them at 5-10 for the playoffs...but this team is structured well for the playoffs anyway.

the 152% house hold means that it's not appropriate to use the odds to estimate your team's WS chances, unless you adjust for that. this would put the jays at 3%.
   51. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: February 01, 2008 at 02:57 AM (#2681371)
I put down 200 bucks on the D Backs last year at 75-1 to win the W.S. (Most of the sports books had them 60-1, and then I saw 75-1 so I grabbed it). I was sitting pretty till the NLCS. Ha ha.


Is there a market to trade these bets, like the futures or options markets? It would be nice if you could trade such long positions.
   52. Vegas Watch Posted: February 01, 2008 at 06:11 AM (#2681428)
World Sports Exchange (www.wsex.com) has that kind of thing. Or, you could have hedged it by betting on the Rockies to win the NLCS.
   53. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: February 01, 2008 at 01:35 PM (#2681481)
World Sports Exchange (www.wsex.com)


NSFW?
   54. Mister High Standards Posted: February 01, 2008 at 02:25 PM (#2681513)
The problem with betting on any single AL team as a favorite is the rougher road they have getting there.


Sam is absolutly correct. When I was in Vegas for my big Three Ohh in December, I dropped a 150 on world series betting. I believe this was the breakdown of my wagers, but I may be off slightly as its off the top of my head with the betting slips are at home.

80-1 Reds: 20 bucks
25-1 Padres: 50 bucks
20-1 Dodgers: 20 bucks
22-1 Brewers: 20 bucks
30-1 Cards: 20 bucks
22-1 D-Backs: 20 bucks

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 19 June 2017: Bipartisan baseball: Dems best GOP, give trophy to wounded Scalise
(793 - 9:57am, Jun 23)
Last: TDF, situational idiot

NewsblogOT - March 2017 NBA thread
(7030 - 9:52am, Jun 23)
Last: STIGGLES don't want to talk about cracker barrel

NewsblogBeyond the Box Score: On the lack of interest in Albert Pujols’s 600 HR and Adrián Beltré’s pursuit of 3,000 hits
(57 - 9:52am, Jun 23)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogThe Mets Are Pissed At Yasiel Puig For Admiring His Homer
(57 - 9:45am, Jun 23)
Last: Dillon Gee Escape Plan

NewsblogKyle Schwarber headed back to Triple-A Iowa
(35 - 9:44am, Jun 23)
Last: Jesus Frankenstein

Sox TherapyRed Sox Retire Rich Garces' Number
(3 - 9:31am, Jun 23)
Last: Batman

NewsblogRecounting the many ways baseball has changed in 20 years
(23 - 9:27am, Jun 23)
Last: AROM

NewsblogJarrod Dyson breaks up perfect game with bunt – and Justin Verlander isn’t mad
(30 - 9:25am, Jun 23)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

Sox TherapyMinor Moves
(1 - 9:03am, Jun 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogYour 2017 MLB local broadcaster rankings
(51 - 7:41am, Jun 23)
Last: Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo

NewsblogCan rising prospect be roundabout solution to Yankees’ 1st base problem? | New York Post
(9 - 1:58am, Jun 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogMy OMNI has a second name, it's CHATTER, for June 22, 2017
(47 - 1:48am, Jun 23)
Last: Jesus Frankenstein

Sox TherapyFeeling A Draft - Part II
(10 - 1:11am, Jun 23)
Last: Dillon Gee Escape Plan

NewsblogNegro Leagues Baseball Museum receives $1 million gift from MLB, players union
(10 - 10:52pm, Jun 22)
Last: Alex meets the threshold for granular review

Sox TherapyWitty Minor League Thread Title Here
(35 - 10:45pm, Jun 22)
Last: Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo

Page rendered in 0.3133 seconds
47 querie(s) executed