Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store

Recent Blogs


Photo

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

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,137 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:04 PM

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=1][SIZE=2]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: 89½
Cincinnati Reds: 88½
Texas Rangers: 87
Toronto Blue Jays: 86½
New York Yankees: 86½
San Francisco Giants: 86
Atlanta Braves: 86
Tampa Bay Rays: 86
St. Louis Cardinals: 85½
Oakland Athletics: 83
Philadelphia Phillies: 81½
Arizona Diamondbacks: 81½
Chicago White Sox: 80½
Milwaukee Brewers: 79½
Boston Red Sox: 79½
Kansas City Royals: 79
Pittsburgh Pirates: 79
Cleveland Indians: 77½
Baltimore Orioles: 76½
Seattle Mariners: 76½
San Diego Padres: 74½
New York Mets: 74
Chicago Cubs: 72
Colorado Rockies: 71½
Minnesota Twins: 64½
Miami Marlins: 64½
Houston Astros: 59½[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]

#2 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 15 February 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.

#3 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 3,050 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:13 PM

Bet on the Strohs while you're at it.

#4 James

James

    Sideburns Specialist

  • Members
  • 1,432 posts
  • LocationThe dive bars of NE Minneapolis

Posted 15 February 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.

You can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.


#5 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,137 posts

Posted 15 February 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:

#6 Dance with Disco Dan

Dance with Disco Dan

    Member

  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:34 PM

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][SIZE=2]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?[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]


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).

#7 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,115 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 15 February 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. :)

#8 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,038 posts

Posted 15 February 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?

#9 SpiritofVodkaDave

SpiritofVodkaDave

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,137 posts

Posted 15 February 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)

#10 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,343 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 15 February 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 (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...
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#11 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,250 posts

Posted 15 February 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.

#12 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,115 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 15 February 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.

#13 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 533 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#14 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:30 AM

thanks for posting this Dave

#15 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,368 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 16 February 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.

#16 AM.

AM.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 06:20 AM

Correia as opening day starter, Florimon at SS? 65 sounds about right to me....

#17 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,184 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#18 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,758 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#19 josecordoba

josecordoba

    Member

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#20 mk

mk

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#21 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,618 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#22 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 686 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#23 AM.

AM.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#24 jimbo92107

jimbo92107

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 554 posts

Posted 16 February 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?

#25 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,115 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 16 February 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.

#26 DefinitelyNotVodkaDave

DefinitelyNotVodkaDave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 7 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#27 John Bonnes

John Bonnes

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 4,969 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#28 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,184 posts

Posted 16 February 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.

#29 DefinitelyNotVodkaDave

DefinitelyNotVodkaDave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 7 posts

Posted 16 February 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

#30 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,368 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 17 February 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.

Edited by glunn, 17 February 2013 - 04:55 PM.