PDA

View Full Version : MLB Team's Wins O/U (Spoiler alert the Twins are 2nd to last)



SpiritofVodkaDave
02-15-2013, 03:04 PM
I am actually gonna bet the farm on the Twins if I can get that line in Vegas in a couple weeks. 65 wins shouldn't be THAT hard, right?

Courtesy of Atlantis Casino Resort:

Detroit Tigers: 90
Los Angeles Dodgers: 90
Washington Nationals: 90
Los Angeles Angels: 89
Cincinnati Reds: 88
Texas Rangers: 87
Toronto Blue Jays: 86
New York Yankees: 86
San Francisco Giants: 86
Atlanta Braves: 86
Tampa Bay Rays: 86
St. Louis Cardinals: 85
Oakland Athletics: 83
Philadelphia Phillies: 81
Arizona Diamondbacks: 81
Chicago White Sox: 80
Milwaukee Brewers: 79
Boston Red Sox: 79
Kansas City Royals: 79
Pittsburgh Pirates: 79
Cleveland Indians: 77
Baltimore Orioles: 76
Seattle Mariners: 76
San Diego Padres: 74
New York Mets: 74
Chicago Cubs: 72
Colorado Rockies: 71
Minnesota Twins: 64
Miami Marlins: 64
Houston Astros: 59

mcrow
02-15-2013, 03:13 PM
I think they are almost for sure going to be over 65 wins so it's probably a good bet.

probably in the low to mid 70's I'd think.

Willihammer
02-15-2013, 03:13 PM
Bet on the Strohs while you're at it.

James
02-15-2013, 03:21 PM
64 1/2 !?!?!?! I know the Twins are going to be bad this year, but I don't expect them to THAT bad. I would take the over for sure.

SpiritofVodkaDave
02-15-2013, 03:21 PM
The shocking thing to me is the Twins are 15 games behind the 4th place AL Central Team. So about that whole equal on field talent thing.... :th_alc:

Dance with Disco Dan
02-15-2013, 03:34 PM
I am actually gonna bet the farm on the Twins if I can get that line in Vegas in a couple weeks. 65 wins shouldn't be THAT hard, right?

Two weeks? Sorry, I anticipate that the legion of half-fullers on this board will run that line up to O/U 68.5 by next Wednesday.

Seriously though, I would hit the over at 65 but not hard. Too many Who's-its? pitching and playing up the middle. Also regression is very probable for many of the players that played a big part in winning 66 last season (Willingham, Plouffe, Diamond, Doumit).

ashburyjohn
02-15-2013, 03:48 PM
The shocking thing to me is the Twins are 15 games behind the 4th place AL Central Team. So about that whole equal on field talent thing.... :th_alc:

Well, at the risk of belaboring either the obvious or something I know only superficially, these betting lines are at heart not about getting it right in terms of the reality being bet upon. but in getting equal amounts of dollars to be bet on each side of some line. As long as the dollars are green the sports books really don't care. If you find a betting line at 64.5 wins for the Twins, feel free to take advantage of the strangers you feel are betting on the wrong side of it, because the casino will act as your intermediary and ensure you get your winnings from them without hard feelings creeping in. :)

birdwatcher
02-15-2013, 04:56 PM
Two weeks? Sorry, I anticipate that the legion of half-fullers on this board will run that line up to O/U 68.5 by next Wednesday.

Seriously though, I would hit the over at 65 but not hard. Too many Who's-its? pitching and playing up the middle. Also regression is very probable for many of the players that played a big part in winning 66 last season (Willingham, Plouffe, Diamond, Doumit).

Aren't the legions of empty-glassers bettors?

SpiritofVodkaDave
02-15-2013, 05:29 PM
Well, at the risk of belaboring either the obvious or something I know only superficially, these betting lines are at heart not about getting it right in terms of the reality being bet upon. but in getting equal amounts of dollars to be bet on each side of some line. As long as the dollars are green the sports books really don't care. If you find a betting line at 64.5 wins for the Twins, feel free to take advantage of the strangers you feel are betting on the wrong side of it, because the casino will act as your intermediary and ensure you get your winnings from them without hard feelings creeping in. :)

I realize how they are set, but typically its a pretty good indication of where the experts will think things will finish up. (Give or take a game or two to create additional action etc)

Thrylos
02-15-2013, 05:36 PM
I realize how they are set, but typically its a pretty good indication of where the experts will think things will finish up. (Give or take a game or two to create additional action etc)

Interesting fact: just before the 2011 season the Twins' over/under was 86.5 games (http://www.thespread.com/mlb-articles/022711-2011-mlb-regular-season-overunder-win-totals-a-odds) (ahead of everyone in the Central)

Not sure if this says more about the O/U, the experts, or those who run the team. But it is not a flawless process...

jokin
02-15-2013, 07:02 PM
Aren't the legions of empty-glassers bettors?

Yeah, but they wait for the suckers who ride the emotional train to put the odds more heavily in their favor.

ashburyjohn
02-15-2013, 11:55 PM
I realize how they are set, but typically its a pretty good indication of where the experts will think things will finish up.

I think we're at something of a circular argument. The expertise here is in setting a line that will attract even betting on each side of the line. Period. If that happens to coincide with expert opinion on the actual state of matters, it is beyond just coincidence, it's irrelevant to the purposes of the people collecting the vig.

drivlikejehu
02-16-2013, 12:25 AM
If the lines are too far from reality "smart money" will almost always outweigh biased fans (and move the line in the 'right' direction). The Dodgers are a bit high due to hype, but that sort of thing doesn't come into play much with the Twins.

I'd take the over because the AL Central is so weak overall, but not with a lot of confidence. Various other O/Us stand out as better picks... Cubs, over; Red Sox, over; Dodgers, under. I also like Mets, over and Pirates & Royals, under.

johnnydakota
02-16-2013, 12:30 AM
thanks for posting this Dave

glunn
02-16-2013, 02:02 AM
I have been thinking of a trip to Vegas anyway, to visit my favorite living art gallery. This seems like a good bet to me.

AM.
02-16-2013, 06:20 AM
Correia as opening day starter, Florimon at SS? 65 sounds about right to me....

TheLeviathan
02-16-2013, 07:45 AM
Correia as opening day starter, Florimon at SS? 65 sounds about right to me....

Can an entire town be ignored?

I'm a bit surprised the line isn't closer to 68-69 though, I expect the Twins to win a bit more than 70 myself, or within a few games of that.

old nurse
02-16-2013, 08:20 AM
Can an entire town be ignored?

I'm a bit surprised the line isn't closer to 68-69 though, I expect the Twins to win a bit more than 70 myself, or within a few games of that.
In predicting win totals for baseball the win total has to come out to the number of games played. Reread Asbury John's comments. It is about them making money, not reality.

josecordoba
02-16-2013, 08:25 AM
I would take the over. I would be more on the fence if the number was 66.5. The problem with betting the under on a number like this is a lot of things need to really go wrong (Injuries) to lose this many games. This is why it's not real common for teams to lose 100 games. So breaking down the Twins potential record a few factors pop into my head.

Things likely to get better
-Starting Pitching- The Twins starters produced an ERA of 5.40 last year. Even an improvement to 5.20 in 900 Innings leads to around 3-4 more wins.

Things likely to get worse
-Revere, Span, and Willingham contributed 11.2 WAR. Revere and Span are gone. Willingham probably projects as more a 2-3 WAR player. Mauer might have a hard time matching his line of a .416 OBP. Morneau probably gets better. Third Base won't have Danny Valencia hanging around either.

Things likely to stay the same
-The Bullpen projects to me to be about what is was 21st in WAR. Guys like Burton, Perkins, and Duensing won't be as good. But there drop off will be offset by Jeff Gray not being around. Even with some Bullpen Variance this shouldn't impact the final total all that much.

I see why Vegas has these numbers. I just tend to bet the over on bad teams due to good luck and random variance upward being more probable.

mk
02-16-2013, 09:20 AM
I'd take the under. I think the division will be better with the Royals added to competitiveness. Plus the Twins are in rebuild mode so Willingham and Morneau could be gone by July. Their best starter may be hurt to start the year. About the only spots on he roster that you could predict with confidence to be above average are a catcher that's only a half time catcher and the closer. And I don't foresee many opportunities for Perkins.

jorgenswest
02-16-2013, 09:24 AM
Reasons to bet under...

- Bottom of the league starting pitching
- the defense with Willingham, Parmelee, Doumit, Plouffe, Mastroianni in center may be worse than the pitching
- big drop off when either Willingham, Mauer and Morneau is injured
- Morneau or Willingham could be traded with big drop off in replacement
- Florimon and Butera could be the bottom two bats in baseball.

Reasons to be over...

- Gibson, Hendriks and Hardin have some upside and improve the rotation
- Hicks and Arcia make it to the show and stabilize OF defense. Mauer catcher 120 games and Doumit leaves glove at home. Plouffe steps it up at 3B as he gets to focus on the position for the first time.
- Morneau is traded but Parmelee and Arcia play well.


To me the success of the season is not the win column. It will be a success if the key young players on the system take a step forward. It will be a success if the Twins can turn some decline phase assets into prospects. At the major league level, much is riding on the performance of Plouffe, Parmelee, Hendriks, Diamond and Dozier. How many of these under control players can the Twins count on in 2014-2015? These guys have some major league time under their belt. If they are not successful this year, there will be good reason to question whether they are part of the solution.

Oldgoat_MN
02-16-2013, 09:59 AM
64-98? When you think about losing 2 of the top 6 OBP guys (Span & Revere) this doesn't seem so unlikely. I expect Diamond to regress, but I like Worley. The rest of the starting rotation is a coin toss. Very difficult to project how all the rehab arms are going to play out.
Still, 98 losses? Again? That is a big number.

AM.
02-16-2013, 10:13 AM
Vegas sets the line for 50% above and below. And the 50% above are all of the Twins homers who love to be optimistic about their club. You'd like to think hometown fans would be wiser, but in fact they are just more biased.

Smart money is on the under.

jimbo92107
02-16-2013, 10:27 AM
What if Gibson and Hendriks and Pressly look great this spring? What if Pelfrey and Harden come back strong from TJ and shoulder surgery? What if Hicks and Benson both smack 15 dingers, steal 20 bags, and play outfield like Dimaggio?

What if Deduno reveals his 90mph knuckleball?

ashburyjohn
02-16-2013, 11:28 AM
Vegas sets the line for 50% above and below. And the 50% above are all of the Twins homers who love to be optimistic about their club. You'd like to think hometown fans would be wiser, but in fact they are just more biased.

Smart money is on the under.

Vegas has set these lines so that the O/U is 2406 wins for the league as a whole. There aren't enough rainouts to account for 24 missing wins - I'll take the over.

I'll try it again a different way: Vegas says what the people want to hear. Any resemblance to the actual sporting outcomes is coincidence.

DefinitelyNotVodkaDave
02-16-2013, 01:22 PM
Vegas has set these lines so that the O/U is 2406 wins for the league as a whole. There aren't enough rainouts to account for 24 missing wins - I'll take the over.

I'll try it again a different way: Vegas says what the people want to hear. Any resemblance to the actual sporting outcomes is coincidence.

That is a good point, I looked through the list and found a few "overs" that I liked quite a bit including the Dodgers, Nationals and Mariners.

John Bonnes
02-16-2013, 01:28 PM
I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole.

I'll gie a reason for the under that I don't think I've seen - the last place team in a division is often very, very bad, like low 60s kind of bad. And the Twins are going to be the last place team in this division.

TheLeviathan
02-16-2013, 01:30 PM
In predicting win totals for baseball the win total has to come out to the number of games played. Reread Asbury John's comments. It is about them making money, not reality.

What are you talking about? I am surprised the number isn't at 68 or so because 64 and a half leaves little room for Vegas and the under. Basically if they avoid 100 losses Vegas loses big on the over. So either Vegas is supremely confident the Twins are awful and set the number low to entice a lot of over bets or they believe the betting public is supremely confident the Twins are awful. 68 gives Vegas a few more wins to play with and still will pull in bets on the over.

So I'm surprised they set it as low as they did, it leaves their profit margin pretty tight. Unless the Twins are ridiculously bad, then Vegas wins big because they will likely get a lot of over bets on that line.

DefinitelyNotVodkaDave
02-16-2013, 01:35 PM
Vegas wins no matter what on these though, a lot of times on season O/U bets like this the numbers go off at -120 instead of -110

glunn
02-17-2013, 01:49 AM
I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole.

I'll gie a reason for the under that I don't think I've seen - the last place team in a division is often very, very bad, like low 60s kind of bad. And the Twins are going to be the last place team in this division.

I am going to take a shot at this one. A friend is going to Vegas next week and I gave him the money tonight. I agree that the Twins could come in last and be very bad, but I believe that there is a good chance that the pitching will be better this year.

BHtwins
02-17-2013, 08:51 AM
I seriously dont know how you could predict much under a 100 losses. This starting staff is one giant question mark. They could catch some luck but on the face it looks worse then last year and maybe historically bad. Plus, the added bonus of the defense being several runs worse with the loss of Span and Revere.

Its sad as I think they could actually score some runs...but I have a hard time seeing how they limit their opponents from scoring a lot more.

frightwig
02-17-2013, 03:37 PM
The expertise here is in setting a line that will attract even betting on each side of the line.

Yep, and think about what it means when the books are trying to set a line that will attract betting on each side, and still come up with a number as low as 64.5 wins. All but three teams fall in the range of 71.5 to 90 wins. The Astros, Marlins, and Twins don't get enough regard even to project above 65 wins. People with money at stake really, really, really think the Twins are going to suck hard.

mysonlikes7
02-17-2013, 04:06 PM
I am in a wager at work on Twins wins. I guessed 68 (lowest pick out of six guys). My logic was the Twins will be playing under. 500 by the time the trading deadline rolls around and will have a fire sale. That is when the losses will really start adding up. I like my chances.

mysonlikes7
02-17-2013, 04:14 PM
There aren't enough people that care about the Twins right now for them to lose any substantial money by setting this line. If they lose any money on this wager they will get it all back from the Twins Kool-Aid drinkers who will bet on them winning the World Series.

drjim
02-17-2013, 07:09 PM
I think the Twins are improved and play better than the past two years and end up in the low 70s for wins. Even with this they are the 14th team in the league. I think Houston goes way low and much of the rest of the league is bunched together (to a point), more parity this year than usual.

josecordoba
02-17-2013, 09:45 PM
I think one point that hasn't been made has to deal with simple probability. The Twins have had 2 Teams since they came to Minnesota with 98 Losses to get the under. The 2011 Team wasn't exactly a bastion of health. The 1982 Team didn't have Joe Mauer. Teams losing this many games isn't real common with 22 such teams in the last decade. You break the numbers down further it's more likely the Twins end up 10 games above the projection mark then 10 games below. I can't guarantee the Twins won't lose 98 games. I can see why some fans believe it's possible. I just think as a probability guy it's not the most likely scenario. These are the reasons I'd take the over.