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, February 14, 2013

Yankees May Record Fewest Wins in 20 Years, Vegas Oddsmakers Say

Poor Yankees…as poor as Mitzi Stauffer Briggs’ “Poor Joe Agosto”.

The 27-time champions are conspicuously absent among the favorites to win the World Series this year, according to sports books in Las Vegas, and aren’t the oddsmakers’ pick to win a division title they’ve claimed 12 of the past 15 years.

Steve Mikkelson, who has set baseball betting lines since 1987 and is the sports book director for the Atlantis Casino Resort in Reno, Nevada, yesterday put the Yankees’ projected win total for this season at 86 1/2. The Yankees haven’t won fewer than 87 games in a full season since 1992, and have had 94 wins or more seven of the past eight years.

“I can never recall seeing the Yankees in this position,” said Mikkelson, who put up Nevada’s earliest win totals for MLB teams for the seventh straight year. “They’ve always been one of the top two or three teams, if not the top team, year in and year out for the last 20 years.”

...With a projected win total of 86 1/2, bettors can place a season-long wager on whether the Yankees will have 87 wins or more, or if they’ll have 86 wins or fewer. A winning $115 wager would return a $100 profit. New York’s worst record during the past 17 years was an 87-74 mark in 2000, when it went on to win a third straight World Series title.

Championship Odds

The Yankees head into spring training with 14-1 odds of winning this year’s World Series, tied for eighth among the league’s 30 teams at the Las Vegas Hotel’s Super Book. The Los Angeles Angels, Detroit Tigers, Los Angeles Dodgers, Washington Nationals, Cincinnati Reds, Toronto Blue Jays and defending champion San Francisco Giants currently have better odds.

“I can’t remember the last time they’ve been in this range to win the World Series at the start of the year,” Chris Bennett, who sets baseball lines for the LVH Super Book, said in a telephone interview. “I feel like they’ve always been less than 10-1, at least, coming into the season. People have a lot of questions about the Yankees.”

Repoz Posted: February 14, 2013 at 06:33 AM | 73 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: yankees

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. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:15 AM (#4369341)
If the Yankees make it to 87 wins with that starting lineup, Girardi should get Manager of the Year, Manager of the Decade, and a ####### Congressional Medal of Honor.
   2. John Northey Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:23 AM (#4369343)
Interesting to see the win totals for the AL East...
Yankees 86.5
Blue Jays 86.5
Rays 86.0
Red Sox 79.5
Orioles 76.5

So the Yankees are co-favorites with the Jays based on win totals alone with the Rays as close as it gets. Obviously betters don't see the Orioles as likely to repeat the magic of 2012.
   3. John Northey Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:26 AM (#4369345)
AL Playoff teams based on win totals...
Tigers (90)
Angels (89.5)
Rangers (87) (wild card #1)
Yankees/Jays (86.5) (one AL East winner, other wild card #2)

NL Playoff teams...
Dodgers (90)
Nationals (90)
Reds (89.5)
Atlanta/Giants (86 each) (wild cards 1 & 2)

Interesting choices.
   4. bobm Posted: February 14, 2013 at 08:55 AM (#4369352)
Nobody is projected to win over 90 games? Are they forecasting a strike-shortened season in 2013?
   5. bobm Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:04 AM (#4369354)
FTFA:

MLB PROJECTED 2013 WIN TOTALS
=============================
Detroit Tigers          90
Los Angeles Dodgers     90
Washington Nationals    90
Los Angeles Angels      89 1/2
Cincinnati Reds         88 1/2
Texas Rangers           87
Toronto Blue Jays       86 1/2
New York Yankees        86 1/2
San Francisco Giants    86
Atlanta Braves          86
Tampa Bay Rays          86
St. Louis Cardinals     85 1/2
Oakland Athletics       83
Philadelphia Phillies   81 1/2
Arizona Diamondbacks    81 1/2
Chicago White Sox       80 1/2
Milwaukee Brewers       79 1/2
Boston Red Sox          79 1/2
Kansas City Royals      79
Pittsburgh Pirates      79
Cleveland Indians       77 1/2
Baltimore Orioles       76 1/2
Seattle Mariners        76 1/2
San Diego Padres        74 1/2
New York Mets           74
Chicago Cubs            72
Colorado Rockies        71 1/2
Minnesota Twins         64 1/2
Miami Marlins           64 1/2
Houston Astros          59 1/2
   6. Howie Menckel Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:04 AM (#4369356)

What Vegas oddsmakers mostly are saying is that the public believes the Yankees may record the fewest wins in 20 years. They now dabble somewhat into what they expect as well, to maximize profits, but public PERCEPTION continues to weigh heavily on line-setting.

   7. bobm Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:13 AM (#4369360)
The only 3 times that MLB has failed to produce a team that won at least 90 games in a season since 1901 was in the 1981, 1994 and 1918 seasons.

No season longer than 140 games has failed to produce a team that led MLB in wins and won at least 91 games.

Year   G  Max Win    # Win 91+
1981 111       66            0
1994 117       74            0
1918 129       84            0
1901 140       90            0
1926 154       91            1
1903 140       91            2
1958 154       92            2
1924 154       93            3
1959 156       94            1
1922 154       94            3
1916 154       94            3
1982 162       95            4


Source: My analysis of data at http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/
   8. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:19 AM (#4369362)
No season longer than 140 games has failed to produce a team that led MLB in wins and won at least 91 games

In gambling the trick is to pick the team/teams that will do it which is why the line is what it is. It's factoring in the uncertainty.

I'd take the under on the Cubs and the over on the Nationals and Dodgers.
   9. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:23 AM (#4369364)
Detroit Tigers 90
Los Angeles Dodgers 90
Washington Nationals 90
Los Angeles Angels 89 1/2


Some interesting World Series matchups in there: Tigers-Nats would be my dream, Tigers-Dodgers would also be cool (would Vin Scully call the games?). And finally a possible Freeway Series!
   10. bobm Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:24 AM (#4369365)
No 162-game season has failed to produce at least 3 teams that won at least 91 games in a season; since 2000 at least 4 teams have won 91+ games each year.

Year   G Max Win # Win 91+
1974 162     102         3
1968 162     103         3
1984 162     104         3
1982 162      95         4
2007 163      96         4
1966 162      97         4
1996 162      99         4
1973 162      99         4
1997 162     101         4
1971 162     101         4
1988 162     104         4
1986 162     108         4
1970 162     108         4
1961 162     109         4
2006 162      97         5
1992 162      98         5
1991 162      98         5
1989 162      99         5
1983 162      99         5
2008 163     100         5
1967 162     101         5
1979 162     102         5
1976 162     102         5
1965 162     102         5
1990 162     103         5
1963 162     104         5
1975 162     108         5
1969 162     109         5
1998 163     114         5
1987 162      98         6
1964 162      99         6
2005 162     100         6
1978 163     100         6
1985 162     101         6
1980 163     103         6
1962 165     103         6
1993 162     104         6
2010 162      97         7
2000 162      97         7
2003 162     101         7
2011 162     102         7
2009 163     103         7
2001 162     116         7
2012 162      98         8
1977 162     102         8
1999 163     103         9
2004 162     105        10
2002 162     103        11

   11. thok Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:26 AM (#4369366)
I'd be shocked if the Yankees finished in the 83-89 win range. I expect them either to just be the Yankees and put up a 93 or more win seasons or to have the bottom fall out and win like 73.

(I realize that no team is likely to win +-3 games of their projection. But given that, I think the Yankees are even less likely to win 86.5+-3 games than what you might think just looking at how teams do against historical lines.)
   12. bobm Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4369367)
No season longer than 140 games has failed to produce a team that led MLB in wins and won at least 91 games

In gambling the trick is to pick the team/teams that will do it which is why the line is what it is. It's factoring in the uncertainty.

I'd take the under on the Cubs and the over on the Nationals and Dodgers.


Understood. With no team "predicted" to win over 90 games, it is probably a good bet to take the over on almost any team you think will make the playoffs / generically "do well."
   13. McCoy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4369375)
I've got a buddy going to Vegas next week but I don't think I'd put enough money down to make it worthwhile to have to travel back to Vegas to collect.
   14. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4369376)
I'm almost at the point of rooting for the Yankees. The doom and gloom is getting silly. They've been in three of the last four ALCS, for all the talk about players that aren't there they still have an awful lot of talent and they have proven to be a very smart organization as well. At some point they'll probably have a bad year but I think you predict it at your own peril.
   15. bobm Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:45 AM (#4369377)
I've got a buddy going to Vegas next week but I don't think I'd put enough money down to make it worthwhile to have to travel back to Vegas to collect.

I thought one could collect on sportsbook bets by mail.
   16. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:50 AM (#4369381)
If the Yankees make it to 87 wins with that starting lineup, Girardi should get Manager of the Year, Manager of the Decade, and a ####### Congressional Medal of Honor.

RLYW had the CAIRO standing up yesterday.

The Yankees are exactly at 87, with the Rays at 88 and the Jays at 90.
   17. escabeche Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:54 AM (#4369382)
Nobody is projected to win over 90 games?


The fact that no team is projected to win over 90 games is not a projection that no team will win over 90 games.

You see the same kind of compression in the CAIRO projections. The projections are meant to be an estimate of how good a team is, averaging out the unpredictable factor of how lucky a team is. It's not so weird for there to be no team in the league with more than 90-win talent. But there are a lot of teams with 85-90 win talent and some of them are going to get lucky.

Also, I think 76.5 is low for the Orioles. There's no reason to expect them to win 93 games again, but 76.5 says they're going to put worse talent on the field this year than they did last year, and I just don't see that.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 09:56 AM (#4369386)
Also, I think 76.5 is low for the Orioles. There's no reason to expect them to win 93 games again, but 76.5 says they're going to put worse talent on the field this year than they did last year, and I just don't see that.

Well, the division is almost certainly tougher. 36 games against Boston and Toronto are going to be harder than last year's.
   19. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4369387)
The fact that no team is projected to win over 90 games is not a projection that no team will win over 90 games.

Yup, this.

The fact that they have 5 teams that are virtual coin-flips to win over 90, and about another 7 with reasonable non-outside shots at doing so, means they think there will be quite a few. They just aren't sure which ones it will be.
   20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4369389)
The fact that they have 5 teams that are virtual coin-flips to win over 90, and about another 7 with reasonable non-outside shots at doing so, means they think there will be quite a few. They just aren't sure which ones it will be.

It's basic probability. No one has good odds of getting in a car wreck next week, but somebody will.
   21. DKDC Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM (#4369395)
They just aren't sure which ones it will be.


It’s the Orioles, duh.
   22. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4369413)
The funniest thing about the list isn't no team being projected to win more than 90, but the Astros being projected to win 59. They'll be lucky to win 50.
   23. TerpNats Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4369417)
If no team wins more than 90 games over a full season, that would mean the top W-L record would be .556. In the pre-expansion era, 1958 was the last year no MLB team finished over .600. That year, the Yankees and Braves both finished at .597, but despite the relative balance (aside from the Senators at .396, every team was at .448 or higher), both pennant races lacked drama (New York won by 10 games, Milwaukee won by eight).
   24. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:43 AM (#4369420)
Cleveland Indians 77 1/2
Jeezum crow, with that starting rotation, take the under and run.

They've had their best offseason in recent memory, but the starting rotation is a guy who's had one good season as a starter since 2006 (Myers), a 22-year-old who may well be a star but has four career MLB appearances (Bauer), a guy who absolutely cannot get LHB out and has an ERA+ of 92 over his last 602 innings (Masterson), a guy who's obviously broken and has an 82 ERA+ since 2011 (Jimenez), and a back-end guy who appears to be entirely adequate, but whose ceiling is approximately Number Three Starter (McAllister).

For the first time in forever, I feel like they know what they're trying to accomplish. Alas, that doesn't make it any easier in the short term to go .500 with a rotation full of junk and question marks.
   25. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4369421)
With no team "predicted" to win over 90 games, it is probably a good bet to take the over on almost any team you think will make the playoffs / generically "do well.
This is wrong. If you have reason to believe that Vegas has underrated a specific team - I think the Nats are a good over bet - then that can be a smart bet, but the fact that none are projected over 90 does not mean that Vegas has systematically underrated the good teams. (With reference to escabeche, snapper, and FPH's points above.)
   26. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4369423)
If the Yankees make it to 87 wins with that starting lineup, Girardi should get Manager of the Year, Manager of the Decade, and a ####### Congressional Medal of Honor.

RLYW had the CAIRO standing up yesterday.

The Yankees are exactly at 87, with the Rays at 88 and the Jays at 90.


Well and good, but the Yankees' starting lineup looks a lot more like Damascus than Cairo.
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4369425)
Well and good, but the Yankees' starting lineup looks a lot more like Damascus than Cairo.

This level of whining is unbecoming a Yankee fan ;-)

They are what they are, a good, not great team. There are no great teams in the AL, so they've got as good a chance as most anybody.
   28. GregD Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4369426)
As has been stated multiple times already, there is zero chance a casino would give you even odds on any team winning 91+ games. Someone here can figure this out better than I can, but I'd guess from these numbers you'd be looking at like 1 to 9 on that bet.

Lines aren't projections, but even if they were projecting 3 teams to win 90, 1 to win 89 1/2, 1 to win 88 1/2, and 1 to win 87 is a guarantee that a team will win 91. As I look at it, I actually suspect you'd have to give 1 to 20 on any team winning 91+ games.
   29. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4369431)
As has been stated multiple times already, there is zero chance a casino would give you even odds on any team winning 91+ games. Someone here can figure this out better than I can, but I'd guess from these numbers you'd be looking at like 1 to 9 on that bet.

Lines aren't projections, but even if they were projecting 3 teams to win 90, 1 to win 89 1/2, 1 to win 88 1/2, and 1 to win 87 is a guarantee that a team will win 91. As I look at it, I actually suspect you'd have to give 1 to 20 on any team winning 91+ games.


Of course. If 7 teams had only a 10% chance each of winning 90, the odds still favor at least 1 90 game winner. (0.9)^7=48%.
   30. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:54 AM (#4369437)
They've had their best offseason in recent memory, but the starting rotation is a guy who's had one good season as a starter since 2006 (Myers), a 22-year-old who may well be a star but has four career MLB appearances (Bauer), a guy who absolutely cannot get LHB out and has an ERA+ of 92 over his last 602 innings (Masterson), a guy who's obviously broken and has an 82 ERA+ since 2011 (Jimenez), and a back-end guy who appears to be entirely adequate, but whose ceiling is approximately Number Three Starter (McAllister).

Don't forget Matsuzaka!
   31. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4369467)
Well and good, but the Yankees' starting lineup looks a lot more like Damascus than Cairo.

This level of whining is unbecoming a Yankee fan ;-)


I'm just facing the facts. In 5 out of 9 starting positions, including DH, their production is almost certain to decline, and in the other 4 (1B, 2B, LF, CF) you're just hoping to hold the line. They're defensively strong in at most 4 positions (Texeira, Cano, Gardner and Ichiro), there are no catching prospects of any noticeable quality in sight, and the only pitchers almost certain to increase their production are Mo and Pineda. If you could turn the clock back about 5 years or so, this team would be great, and if our parents had been Chinese, we'd probably have yellowish skin.

They are what they are, a good, not great team. There are no great teams in the AL, so they've got as good a chance as most anybody.

That over/under's out there if you really believe that. I've already made my standing offer about the Yanks and the Orioles, and anyone else who wants to take me up on it is welcome to come forward.
   32. Nasty Nate Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4369468)
I've got a buddy going to Vegas next week but I don't think I'd put enough money down to make it worthwhile to have to travel back to Vegas to collect.


I thought one could collect on sportsbook bets by mail.


Yes, you can mail back the ticket and they send you a check.
   33. escabeche Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4369472)
Well, the division is almost certainly tougher. 36 games against Boston and Toronto are going to be harder than last year's.


That's a fair point. Baltimore finished 24 games over .500 last year, and 12 games over .500 against Boston and Toronto.
   34. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4369478)
The funniest thing about the list isn't no team being projected to win more than 90, but the Astros being projected to win 59. They'll be lucky to win 50.

I had the same reaction. If the Vegas book is 59 wins...ouch.
   35. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4369483)
If you could turn the clock back about 5 years or so, this team would be great, and if our parents had been Chinese, we'd probably have yellowish skin.

Racist.

The Yankees are the killer in a typical slasher movie: just when you think they're dead for good, they strike! (Meanwhile, the Red Sox are the teenage girl who decides a lonely lake in the middle of the night is ideal for skinny-dipping.)
   36. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4369486)
For me, I think the best bet up there is the under on the Astros. They are going to be unimaginably, historically bad.

I kind of like the overs on the Nats, Jays, and Red Sox. I don't hate the unders on the Dodgers, White Sox and Mariners.
   37. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4369491)
Well, the division is almost certainly tougher. 36 games against Boston and Toronto are going to be harder than last year's.


That's a fair point. Baltimore finished 24 games over .500 last year, and 12 games over .500 against Boston and Toronto.

Baltimore against Toronto, 2012: 11-7
Yankees against Toronto, 2012: 11-7

Baltimore against Boston, 2012: 13-5
Yankees against Boston, 2012: 13-5
   38. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4369494)
The Yankees are the killer in a typical slasher movie: just when you think they're dead for good, they strike!

I'm thinking of Night of the Living Dead, except that even zombies sometimes run out of arms and legs.
   39. Nasty Nate Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4369495)
In 5 out of 9 starting positions, including DH, their production is almost certain to decline


Just because production will decline from a previous level doesn't mean it will be bad. Especially when the previous level was one of the best offenses in the league.
   40. Tippecanoe Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4369496)
OK, someone has to bite. Is there a prediction thread possibility here?

Detroit Tigers 90 Over
Los Angeles Dodgers 90 Under
Washington Nationals 90 Under
Los Angeles Angels 89 1/2 Over
Cincinnati Reds 88 1/2 Under
Texas Rangers 87 Over
Toronto Blue Jays 86 1/2 Over
New York Yankees 86 1/2 Under
San Francisco Giants 86 Over
Atlanta Braves 86 Over
Tampa Bay Rays 86 Under
St. Louis Cardinals 85 1/2 Over
Oakland Athletics 83 Under
Philadelphia Phillies 81 1/2 Under
Arizona Diamondbacks 81 1/2 Under
Chicago White Sox 80 1/2 Over
Milwaukee Brewers 79 1/2 Over
Boston Red Sox 79 1/2 Over
Kansas City Royals 79 Under
Pittsburgh Pirates 79 Under
Cleveland Indians 77 1/2 Under
Baltimore Orioles 76 1/2 Over
Seattle Mariners 76 1/2 Under
San Diego Padres 74 1/2 Under
New York Mets 74 Over
Chicago Cubs 72 Under
Colorado Rockies 71 1/2 Over
Minnesota Twins 64 1/2 Over
Miami Marlins 64 1/2 Over
Houston Astros 59 1/2 Under
   41. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4369502)
Detroit Tigers 90 Under
Los Angeles Dodgers 90 Under
Washington Nationals 90 Under
Los Angeles Angels 89 1/2 Over
Cincinnati Reds 88 1/2 Over
Texas Rangers 87 Over
Toronto Blue Jays 86 1/2 Under
New York Yankees 86 1/2 Over
San Francisco Giants 86 Over
Atlanta Braves 86 Over
Tampa Bay Rays 86 Over
St. Louis Cardinals 85 1/2 Over
Oakland Athletics 83 Under
Philadelphia Phillies 81 1/2 Over
Arizona Diamondbacks 81 1/2 Under
Chicago White Sox 80 1/2 Under
Milwaukee Brewers 79 1/2 Over
Boston Red Sox 79 1/2 Over
Kansas City Royals 79 Under
Pittsburgh Pirates 79 Over
Cleveland Indians 77 1/2 Over
Baltimore Orioles 76 1/2 Under
Seattle Mariners 76 1/2 Under
San Diego Padres 74 1/2 Over
New York Mets 74 Over
Chicago Cubs 72 Under
Colorado Rockies 71 1/2 Over
Minnesota Twins 64 1/2 Over
Miami Marlins 64 1/2 Over
Houston Astros 59 1/2 Under
   42. JJ1986 Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4369504)
I think Diamondbacks under is probably my favorite bet. Young pitching, bad defense, and counting on guys (Hill, Ross, Kubel) who overachieved last year as their cornerstones.
   43. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4369511)
I like the over on the Angels, the under on the Giants and Dbacks.
   44. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: February 14, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4369513)
Under on 83 wins for the A's? Fools!
   45. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: February 14, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4369514)
Not predicting any specific team to win more than 90 games is not the same thing as predicting that no team will win more than 90 games.
   46. puck Posted: February 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4369517)
Re projections, PECOTA likes the Yankees.
   47. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4369519)
Angels over, Blue Jays over, Yanks under, Rays over, Cards under, A's over, Orioles over
   48. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4369525)
I'm just facing the facts. In 5 out of 9 starting positions, including DH, their production is almost certain to decline, and in the other 4 (1B, 2B, LF, CF) you're just hoping to hold the line. They're defensively strong in at most 4 positions (Texeira, Cano, Gardner and Ichiro), there are no catching prospects of any noticeable quality in sight, and the only pitchers almost certain to increase their production are Mo and Pineda. If you could turn the clock back about 5 years or so, this team would be great, and if our parents had been Chinese, we'd probably have yellowish skin.

That's crazy.

The LF/CF combo should be MUCH better this year with Gardner/Granderson (in whatever alignment) vs. Ibanez/Jones/Granderson. Youkilis could easily match ARod at 3B. Hafner in DNYS should be able to match the DH committee. Cano and Texeira could be better, the same, or worse. Maybe down is more likely, but up is a possibility.

They'll be weaker at C and RF. Likely SS too.

But this team had the second highest runs scored and the second highest OPS+. Even with a decline, they can still be good on offense. And, the pitching should be good too.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4369526)
Re projections, PECOTA likes the Yankees.

I don't see how the Red Sox project ahead of the Jays.
   50. Tippecanoe Posted: February 14, 2013 at 12:26 PM (#4369539)
Under on 83 wins for the A's? Fools!


My working theory is that, when the Astros show up, the team will be flabbergasted by the fact that they are actually far more talented than an interdivision rival. As a result of this confusion, they'll go 8-10 vs. Houston.

Edit: Apparently my working theory also includes a rain-out, since it looks as though there are actually 19 games scheduled between these teams.
   51. BillWallace Posted: February 14, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4369601)
I don't know if they have this, but if they did my guess is that the over/under for the win total of the mlb leader in wins this season would be 96.5 or so.
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4369622)
I don't know if they have this, but if they did my guess is that the over/under for the win total of the mlb leader in wins this season would be 96.5 or so.

That seems low. Under 96.5 would only have won 1 of the last 20 seasons (excluding '94).
   53. Astroenteritis Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4369652)
I'll be shocked if the Astros win 60 games. It's hard to see that roster coming up with more than 55-57 wins. I'm not a betting man, but I suppose there is a hesitancy to bet at the extremes. After all, going 62-100 could never be considered too shocking an accomplishment. Of course I'm already seeing Carlos Rodon at 1-1 in the 2014 draft, and at the end of the 2014 season there's a decent chance the Astros will be looking at having the first pick in the draft three years running. Oh, for a Strasburg/Harper convergence of some kind.

And I'm taking the over on Oakland.
   54. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4369654)
the fact that none are projected over 90 does not mean that Vegas has systematically underrated the good teams. (With reference to escabeche, snapper, and FPH's points above.)

With reference to all of these well-made points, the one and only task of Vegas oddsmakers is to split the money coming in. Lines are not predictions or projections, they're tools to make money. They don't set lines for accuracy, they set lines to reflect perception, because when bettors' money is split on a line, they collect 100% from the losers and pay 10-to-11 or 10-to-11.5 to the winners.

I've got a buddy going to Vegas next week but I don't think I'd put enough money down to make it worthwhile to have to travel back to Vegas to collect.

The obstacle for me hasn't been the inconvenience of collection but the fact that Vegas gets to keep your money for 6 months on a -110 or -115 proposition. Every year I pick my favorite win total and I'm almost always right (over on the White Sox last year), so it seems I should bet the farm once a year and clean up, but that means Vegas has my farm for half the year. Only futures bet I've ever made on baseball was the Red Sox to win the WS in 2004, a bet I made around mid-May after a tough stretch.

Interestingly, all the lines taken together leave 24 wins out of the equation, so on balance the overs might be seen as better bets. I wonder if this is common - not something I've ever looked at.

If we're predicting:

Detroit Tigers 90 over
LosAngeles Dodgers 90 over
Washington Nationals 90 over
LosAngeles Angels 89.5 under
Cincinnati Reds 88.5 over
Texas Rangers 87 over
Toronto BlueJays 86.5 over
NewYork Yankees 86.5 under
SanFrancisco Giants 86 under
Atlanta Braves 86 over
TampaBay Rays 86 under
St.Louis Cardinals 85.5 under
Oakland Athletics 83 over
Philadelphia Phillies 81.5 under
Arizona Diamondbacks 81.5 over
Chicago WhiteSox 80.5 under
Milwaukee Brewers 79.5 over
Boston RedSox 79.5 over
KansasCity Royals 79 under
Pittsburgh Pirates 79 over
Cleveland Indians 77.5 under
Baltimore Orioles 76.5 over
Seattle Mariners 76.5 under
SanDiego Padres 74.5 under
NewYork Mets 74 under
Chicago Cubs 72 over
Colorado Rockies 71.5 under
Minnesota Twins 64.5 under
Miami Marlins 64.5 under
Houston Astros 59.5 under

Under on the M's or Pads or over on Detroit might be the clubhouse leaders for my favorite total bets this year.
   55. Nasty Nate Posted: February 14, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4369687)
Detroit Tigers 90 under
LosAngeles Dodgers 90 under
Washington Nationals 90 over
LosAngeles Angels 89.5 over
Cincinnati Reds 88.5 over
Texas Rangers 87 under
Toronto BlueJays 86.5 under
NewYork Yankees 86.5 over
SanFrancisco Giants 86 over
Atlanta Braves 86 over
TampaBay Rays 86 over
St.Louis Cardinals 85.5 under
Oakland Athletics 83 under
Philadelphia Phillies 81.5 over
Arizona Diamondbacks 81.5 over
Chicago WhiteSox 80.5 over
Milwaukee Brewers 79.5 under
Boston RedSox 79.5 over
KansasCity Royals 79 over
Pittsburgh Pirates 79 under
Cleveland Indians 77.5 over
Baltimore Orioles 76.5 over
Seattle Mariners 76.5 under
SanDiego Padres 74.5 under
NewYork Mets 74 under
Chicago Cubs 72 under
Colorado Rockies 71.5 over
Minnesota Twins 64.5 over
Miami Marlins 64.5 under
Houston Astros 59.5 over
   56. Gamingboy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4369819)
Hey, judging by some of these over-unders, I'd say there is a not-nonexistent chance of a 5-way tie of 81-81 in the AL East! Go Entropy!
   57. attaboy Posted: February 14, 2013 at 04:42 PM (#4369825)
Detroit Tigers 90 Over
Los Angeles Dodgers 90 Over
Washington Nationals 90 Way over - best bet over
Los Angeles Angels 89 1/2 Over
Cincinnati Reds 88 1/2 Over
Texas Rangers 87 Over
Toronto Blue Jays 86 1/2 Over
New York Yankees 86 1/2 Under
San Francisco Giants 86 Over
Atlanta Braves 86 Over
Tampa Bay Rays 86 Over
St. Louis Cardinals 85 1/2 Over
Oakland Athletics 83 Over
Philadelphia Phillies 81 1/2 Over
Arizona Diamondbacks 81 1/2 Under
Chicago White Sox 80 1/2 Under
Milwaukee Brewers 79 1/2 Over
Boston Red Sox 79 1/2 under
Kansas City Royals 79 over
Pittsburgh Pirates 79 under
Cleveland Indians 77 1/2 Over
Baltimore Orioles 76 1/2 over
Seattle Mariners 76 1/2 Under
San Diego Padres 74 1/2 Over
New York Mets 74 under
Chicago Cubs 72 Under
Colorado Rockies 71 1/2 under
Minnesota Twins 64 1/2 Over
Miami Marlins 64 1/2 Over
Houston Astros 59 1/2 Under
   58. Walt Davis Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4369850)
With reference to all of these well-made points, the one and only task of Vegas oddsmakers is to split the money coming in.

Yes but this suggests that half the people are betting the Astros to be over 59.5 wins ... must be Republicans because nobody else is that insane.
   59. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4369870)
Best bets: Orioles over, Cubs under, Mets over.
   60. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4369880)
The Phillies clinched the under on August 22, with 38 games left, last year.

2012 Major League Baseball Season Win Totals

(Odds courtesy Atlantis Casino sportsbook, Reno, Nev.)

Arizona Diamondbacks 84.5
Atlanta Braves 86.5
Baltimore Orioles 70.5
Boston Red Sox 87.5
Chicago Cubs 73.5
Chicago White Sox 76.5
Cincinnati Reds 86.5 (-120o)
Cleveland Indians 75.5
Colorado Rockies 82.5
Detroit Tigers 94.5
Houston Astros 62.5
Kansas City Royals 78.5
Los Angeles Angels 89.5
Los Angeles Dodgers 81.5
Miami Marlins 82.5
Milwaukee Brewers 82.5
Minnesota Twins 74.5 (-120u)
New York Mets 74.5 (-120u)
New York Yankees 93.5 (-120u)
Oakland Athletics 72.5
Philadelphia Phillies 95.5
Pittsburgh Pirates 73.5 (-120u)
San Diego Padres 70.5
San Francisco Giants 87.5
Seattle Mariners 72.5
St. Louis Cardinals 87.5 (-120u)
Tampa Bay Rays 87.5
Texas Rangers 94.5
Toronto Blue Jays 81
Washington Nationals 80.5
   61. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4369898)
My favorite bets on this:

Over on the Cubs (72)

(big gap, as this seems like the easiest call)

Over on the Red Sox (79.5)
Under on the Tigers (90)
Under on the Phillies (81.5)
Over on the Padres (74.5)

   62. Nasty Nate Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4369909)
61. Davo Mastroianni Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4369898)
My favorite bets on this:

Over on the Cubs (72)


59. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 14, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4369870)
Best bets: Orioles over, Cubs under, Mets over.


You guys should bet each other. I get 5% for brokering the deal.
   63. The Good Face Posted: February 14, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4369918)
With reference to all of these well-made points, the one and only task of Vegas oddsmakers is to split the money coming in.

Yes but this suggests that half the people are betting the Astros to be over 59.5 wins ... must be Republicans because nobody else is that insane.


You do know there's a dedicated thread here for spouting random political insults, right?
   64. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: February 14, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4369922)
PECOTA took the over on Houston (66 wins, 3 more than the Twins and Marlins).
   65. Nasty Nate Posted: February 14, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4369923)

You do know there's a dedicated thread here for spouting random political insults, right?


the Trevor Bauer rap thread?
   66. Willie Mayspedester Posted: February 14, 2013 at 06:48 PM (#4369956)
Detroit Tigers 90 over
LosAngeles Dodgers 90 under
Washington Nationals 90 over
LosAngeles Angels 89.5 over
Cincinnati Reds 88.5 over
Texas Rangers 87 under
Toronto BlueJays 86.5 under
NewYork Yankees 86.5 under
SanFrancisco Giants 86 push!
Atlanta Braves 86 over
TampaBay Rays 86 over
St.Louis Cardinals 85.5 under
Oakland Athletics 83 over
Philadelphia Phillies 81.5 under
Arizona Diamondbacks 81.5 under
Chicago WhiteSox 80.5 over
Milwaukee Brewers 79.5 under
Boston RedSox 79.5 under
KansasCity Royals 79 over
Pittsburgh Pirates 79 under
Cleveland Indians 77.5 over
Baltimore Orioles 76.5 over
Seattle Mariners 76.5 under
SanDiego Padres 74.5 over
NewYork Mets 74 under
Chicago Cubs 72 under
Colorado Rockies 71.5 over
Minnesota Twins 64.5 over
Miami Marlins 64.5 over
Houston Astros 59.5 under
   67. Austin Posted: February 14, 2013 at 07:43 PM (#4369976)
Interestingly, all the lines taken together leave 24 wins out of the equation

Yeah, I thought these projections looked awfully pessimistic overall. It's funny, because normally the odds add up to a little over 81 wins per team, taking advantage of homerism from bettors.

Anyway, the same post with my bets, but with a win added to 18 teams and half a win added to the others to correct for the lack of aggregate wins:

Detroit Tigers 90 1/2 Under
Los Angeles Dodgers 90 1/2 Over
Washington Nationals 90 1/2 Under
Los Angeles Angels 90 Under
Cincinnati Reds 89 Under
Texas Rangers 87 1/2 Over
Toronto Blue Jays 87 Over
New York Yankees 87 Over
San Francisco Giants 86 1/2 Under
Atlanta Braves 86 1/2 Under
Tampa Bay Rays 86 1/2 Under
St. Louis Cardinals 86 Under
Oakland Athletics 83 1/2 Over
Philadelphia Phillies 82 1/2 Over
Arizona Diamondbacks 82 Over
Chicago White Sox 81 1/2 Under
Milwaukee Brewers 80 1/2 Under
Boston Red Sox 80 1/2 Over
Kansas City Royals 80 Under
Pittsburgh Pirates 80 Under
Cleveland Indians 78 1/2 Over
Baltimore Orioles 77 1/2 Under
Seattle Mariners 77 1/2 Under
San Diego Padres 75 1/2 Over
New York Mets 75 Over
Chicago Cubs 73 Over
Colorado Rockies 72 1/2 Under
Minnesota Twins 65 1/2 Over
Miami Marlins 65 1/2 Over
Houston Astros 60 1/2 Over
   68. PreservedFish Posted: February 14, 2013 at 10:03 PM (#4370057)
Does that mean you can bet the over on every team and win some good money?
   69. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:16 PM (#4370081)
No, because o/u bets are -110 or -115.

In other words you have to bet $115 to win $100.

In the aggregate, the vig (and variation, but that's a different topic) overwhelms the -24 total total.

In other words, if the bets were even odds you'd lay out $3k to make a $100 "over" bet on each team. Say that because of the -24, 16 of 30 teams are a lock to beat the over. You'd lay $3k to make $3200. Free money - depending on your opinion of the time value of money. But because these bets are at -115, now you're laying $3450 to win $3440 ($1600 winnings plus $1840 of your bet back). Vegas has an idea what they're doing.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain this more clearly.

Austin's right that usually the reverse is true, though. Now I wish this is something I had been paying attention to for years. Wonder if it's indicative of a cultural trend or something.
   70. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 14, 2013 at 11:40 PM (#4370088)
The oddsmakers seem to be saying the Yankees are as good as anyone in the AL East. Not sure why that's taken as a negative. Too much focus on the number of wins projected rather than the overall result., IMHO. After all, the last time the Yankees had "only" 87 wins turned out to be a very good year. If healthy, the pitching could be very good, with the added boost with Pineda for the second half, too.
   71. bobm Posted: February 15, 2013 at 03:36 AM (#4370142)
From 4 teams with O/U set at 91+ wins in 2012 to 0 in 2013.

Isn't that at least a little odd?

2012 Major League Baseball Season Win Totals

(Odds courtesy Atlantis Casino sportsbook, Reno, Nev.)

[...]

Detroit Tigers 94.5 

[...]

New York Yankees 93.5 (-120u)

[...]

Philadelphia Phillies 95.5

[...]

Texas Rangers 94.5


   72. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 15, 2013 at 06:37 AM (#4370155)
74 wins seems high for the Mets what with losing Dickey, Wright having had a season he's unlikely to repeat, the bullpen dying, and an OF that's going from around ML worst to, well, worse than that. I suppose D'Arnaud and Marcum might help staunch the bleeding, but any team with John Buck as there Opening Day catcher is hurting.

PECOTA has the Mets at 80 wins, or where Vegas has the Red Sox, and the Red Sox at 86 wins, or where Vegas has the Yankees. Weird.
   73. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: February 15, 2013 at 09:15 AM (#4370174)
All 30 teams will finish 81-81, with tiebreaker games lasting into November and the World Series starting Christmas Day between Detroit and...San Antonio. (Wait, what?)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2810 - 11:20am, Oct 21)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(1 - 11:19am, Oct 21)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(7 - 11:17am, Oct 21)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(37 - 11:17am, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(845 - 11:16am, Oct 21)
Last: TFTIO is familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(144 - 11:00am, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(74 - 10:59am, Oct 21)
Last: Booey

NewsblogSo You’re About to Pitch to Pablo Sandoval | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 10:50am, Oct 21)
Last: boteman

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(20 - 10:48am, Oct 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(96 - 10:43am, Oct 21)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(276 - 10:40am, Oct 21)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(99 - 10:36am, Oct 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(17 - 10:08am, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(33 - 9:58am, Oct 21)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(17 - 9:43am, Oct 21)
Last: AROM

Page rendered in 0.7715 seconds
52 querie(s) executed