Vegas projected win totals over/under

[gunnarthor]

ESPN just posted this.  These are the projected win totals (keep in mind that Vegas sets the lines based on how it thinks the money will be spent, not necessarily a projection system although that might not matter as much in baseball).  Anyhow, here's how it has the central.  I'd probably take the over on MN, Det and Cleveland, under on KC and Chicago.

 

AL Central

DETROIT TIGERS 86½

KANSAS CITY ROYALS 83

CHICAGO WHITE SOX 82

CLEVELAND INDIANS 81

MINNESOTA TWINS 68½

 

The rest

ARIZONA D'BACKS 72½
ATLANTA BRAVES 73½
BALTIMORE ORIOLES 84½
BOSTON RED SOX 86
CHICAGO CUBS 81½
CINCINNATI REDS 79
COLORADO ROCKIES 70½
HOUSTON ASTROS 73½
LOS ANGELES ANGELS 87½
LOS ANGELES DODGERS 91
MIAMI MARLINS 81½
MILWAUKEE BREWERS 80
NEW YORK METS 81
NEW YORK YANKEES 80
OAKLAND ATHLETICS 82½
PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES 67
PITTSBURGH PIRATES 85½
SAN DIEGO PADRES 84
SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS 85
SEATTLE MARINERS 85
ST LOUIS CARDINALS 87½
TAMPA BAY RAYS 77½
TEXAS RANGERS 76½
TORONTO BLUE JAYS 83½
WASHINGTON NATIONALS 93

[jimmer]

I'm going to put 1000 bucks on the Indians beating that line.

[TheLeviathan]

68.5.....people around here aren't going to like that.

[USAFChief]

A TD over/under contest will be announced in March.

[gunnarthor]

I'm going to put 1000 bucks on the Indians beating that line.

Yeah, that seemed low.  But that also might be a reflection of where the betting money comes from (and doesn't come from).  

[Platoon]

It looks like and exciting season, us and the Phillies in a battle to the end! I wonder what that number would have been without signing Santana, Hunter, and moving Arcia. Instead, we would have announced Buxton was playing CF, Rosario to LF, and two of either Meyer, May, and Berrios to the rotation.

[ashbury]

It looks like and exciting season, us and the Phillies in a battle to the end! I wonder what that number would have been without signing Santana, Hunter, and moving Arcia. Instead, we would have announced Buxton was playing CF, Rosario to LF, and two of either Meyer, May, and Berrios to the rotation.

Bunch of untested rookies.  65 wins. 

[nicksaviking]

Blocked from the #1 pick by the Phillies?  Damn you Vegas!

[tobi0040]

Obviously none of us are impartial, but it is hard for me to see how the Twins win fewer games than last year.  Too many players could emerge with upside on this roster.  Meyer, May, Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Ervin has been added to the rotation....the pen should get a nice shot in the arm.

 

I think we have more stories of guys emerging plus bounce back candidates like Mauer than we do regression candidats like Hughes, Dozier, Plouffe, and Santana.

[jimmer]

Obviously none of us are impartial, but it is hard for me to see how the Twins win fewer games than last year.  Too many players could emerge with upside on this roster.  Meyer, May, Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Ervin has been added to the rotation....the pen should get a nice shot in the arm.

 

I think we have more stories of guys emerging plus bounce back candidates like Mauer than we do regression candidats like Hughes, Dozier, Plouffe, and Santana.

the problem is the 'could' part, though.  Vegas isn't going to set their odds on whether or not any of the bolded players get significant time or not or whether they will even be good right out the gate.

 

Also, one regression to the negative candidate that fails to get mentioned is Escobar.  Whether his value goes lower due to performance or playing time.

[Willihammer]

Ugh, crap. The Vegas lines are uncannily accurate. If it says we're going in the wrong direction, that's pretty sobering.

[TheLeviathan]

It's possible that they are setting it this low because national betting perception is that we'll be bad and this is the only way they can get some over bets.

 

Either way, these lines are often very, very close.  We can hope to be one of the exceptions but this should be a bit sobering.  Schoenfield isn't the only one with some doubts about this team.  I think there are some really valid reasons to think we could get worse.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think there are some really valid reasons to think we could get worse.

I heard the same things last year. There really isn't a rational reason to think this team gets worse in 2015 unless you think the competition is so much better that it will take a more talented 2015 Twins team and force them into a worse record. The 2015 Twins team is a more talented roster than its 2014 counterpart.

 

Is that possible? Theoretically, sure... but I'm doubtful. Short of injury disaster, I don't see how this team is worse in 2015. It doesn't make sense. Even if Ervin Santana lights himself on fire on April 4th, the Twins will be relying on May, Meyer, and possibly Berrios in 2015. That's a massive ceiling upgrade over De Vries, Pino, and the rest of the clown car they've rolled out in previous years.

 

I think an argument can be made that the Twins will remain essentially neutral in 2015 - posting 70-71 wins - but I don't see how regression is possible unless everything goes horribly wrong.

[jimmer]

So how much would one win if they bet 1000 that the Twins would win 69 or more and the team came through?

[TheLeviathan]

Is that possible? Theoretically, sure... but I'm doubtful. Short of injury disaster, I don't see how this team is worse in 2015. It doesn't make sense. Even if Ervin Santana lights himself on fire on April 4th, the Twins will be relying on May, Meyer, and possibly Berrios in 2015. That's a massive ceiling upgrade over De Vries, Pino, and the rest of the clown car they've rolled out in previous years.

 

I think an argument can be made that the Twins will remain essentially neutral in 2015 - posting 70-71 wins - but I don't see how regression is possible unless everything goes horribly wrong.

 

This "everything has to go horribly wrong" meme should be put to rest already.  How many bad years do we have to have before that hyperbole can die?

 

Look, we've got some much higher ceilings we are about to start playing and that's great.  But ceilings don't win baseball games now, they might be promises to win in the future, but they aren't wins now.  Do I personally think this team slides back?  No, I don't think so, but I can see why the betting public believes it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This "everything has to go horribly wrong" meme should be put to rest already.  How many bad years do we have to have before that hyperbole can die?

Everything didn't go horribly wrong last year. The Twins ended up with a pythag a few games higher than I expected and a real record a few games under what i expected. I don't know what meme you're talking about.

 

By "horribly wrong", I mean Dozier, Hughes, and Mauer all go down for half the season or more. Disaster territory, like what happened in 2011. Basically, the kind of situation where everything goes so horribly askew that preseason projection models become useless because no projection model can predict that the team bus will suddenly explode and kill everyone inside.

 

But hey, way to assume my intent and call it hyperbole.

[maxisagod]

I can't see the Cubs winning 13-14 more games then the Twins. I also can't see the Astros winning 5 more though thats' more believable. 

[Thrylos]

Anyone cares to mention the Twins' Vegas lines before the 1987 and 1991 seasons?

[TheLeviathan]

Everything didn't go horribly wrong last year. The Twins ended up with a pythag a few games higher than I expected and a real record a few games under what i expected. I don't know what meme you're talking about.

 

By "horribly wrong", I mean Dozier, Hughes, and Mauer all go down for half the season or more. Disaster territory, like what happened in 2011. Basically, the kind of situation where everything goes so horribly askew that preseason projection models become useless because no projection model can predict that the team bus will suddenly explode and kill everyone inside.

 

But hey, way to assume my intent and call it hyperbole.

 

For them to finish with an under they would need to be two games worse.  I think it's absolutely hyperbolic to say "everything must go horribly wrong" or that it is "irrational" that they might be two games worse.

 

Sorry, whatever your intent was, the statement was far too dramatic in tone.  I wish we could retire that.  I find it unlikely we will be worse, but I don't think it requires an utter catastrophe to be two games worse.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The statement was not hyperbolic. I exaggerated nothing.

[TheLeviathan]

I can't see the Cubs winning 13-14 more games then the Twins. I also can't see the Astros winning 5 more though thats' more believable. 

 

That Cub line is really interesting.  Clearly Vegas feels like there will be a lot of optimism on that team that they can set the line that high.  

 

They've added a lot of talent but they've got a lot of young question marks on their team too.  I think I'll be taking the under on that record.

[ashbury]

So how much would one win if they bet 1000 that the Twins would win 69 or more and the team came through?

I figured someone would have responded by now, but I think the typical over-under bet is essentially even money, minus the vig.

[USAFChief]

I figured someone would have responded by now, but I think the typical over-under bet is essentially even money, minus the vig.

Yup.  Typically, a $1000 over/under bet will cost you $1100. (Your bet plus a 10% vig).

 

Let's assume one person bets the over for a thousand, one bets the under, also for a thousand.  Vegas has collected $2200.

 

If you lose, they keep the $1100.    If you win, you get $2100.

 

Nice little system they got...if they can just get an even amount of money on either side, they use the losers bet to pay the winner, the winner gets his money and vig back, but Vegas keeps the vig from the loser.

 

They are guaranteed a profit of almost 5% of the total bet on both sides, minus their overhead of course.

 

That theory works a lot better on single events than it does on things like "over/under" team win totals, though.  In theory, if Vegas can hit the sweet spot on the spread for a game, they can't lose.  Even amount of money bet on both sides, it doesn't matter which team wins.  Vegas gets its 5%.

 

But, at least in theory, Vegas could lose money on EVERY team on the "over/under."  Of course, in theory they could win money on every team, too.  Mostly, Vegas doesn't care much for these types of bets, because they have much less control over the outcome.

 

They are pretty good at setting the totals for these kinds of things though, which is why they offer 'em.  

[Halsey Hall]

Chief, are you sure that's how it works?  I haven't had a bookie in a long time, but it was if you bet 1000, that's your bet.  If you lose, it costs the 10% juice, so you lose 1100.  If you win, you get 1000. 

[Kwak]

If I may conclude from The Chief, one can see that the oddsmakers have their own bias built into their predictions--to get an equal amount of money on each side of the action.  I guess most bettors take a dim view of the Twins (not unreasonably so) so the line is less than last year's win total.  I don't wish to justify any win total with an explanation (yet), but ask that Twins Fans realize that not everyone shares their optimism and to use this "bucket of cold water" to deconstruct their estimate of season's wins to examine how much is real and how much is hope.  

[USAFChief]

Chief, are you sure that's how it works? I haven't had a bookie in a long time, but it was if you bet 1000, that's your bet. If you lose, it costs the 10% juice, so you lose 1100. If you win, you get 1000.

 

Same thing. It's just in Vegas, they don't take your word you'll pay up. Cash in advance.

 

Either way, there's the loser's vig that stays with the house (or the bookie.).

 

What most people don't understand is, Vegas (and your bookie) try very hard to avoid gambling.

[gunnarthor]

That Cub line is really interesting.  Clearly Vegas feels like there will be a lot of optimism on that team that they can set the line that high.  

 

They've added a lot of talent but they've got a lot of young question marks on their team too.  I think I'll be taking the under on that record.

Yeah, I figured this was one of the lines built more on how people will bet than on what the team is more likely to finish. 

[ashbury]

 how much is real and how much is hope.  

I was with you, up to here.  The opposite of one team's fans' hopes may be simply other teams' fans' apathy toward them.  I don't know how much of the action is by the self-styled "smart money" of professional bettors who make their living that way (or so they tell their friends), but unless it's the lion's share you are betting against the hopes of fans in bigger cities, and the bookies are there to level out the action.

 

I do think the odds are interesting, in that there is enough smart money involved that it's not just a popularity contest. "My town is red hot, your town ain't doodly squat."

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, I figured this was one of the lines built more on how people will bet than on what the team is more likely to finish. 

 

I think the Twins are in a similar boat for the opposite reasons, but it does make me wonder if my 75 projection isn't optimism speaking.  If Vegas felt like we'd be better I would've expected 70.5.

 

68.5 makes me nervous about thinking 75 wins.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think the Twins are in a similar boat for the opposite reasons, but it does make me wonder if my 75 projection isn't optimism speaking. If Vegas felt like we'd be better I would've expected 70.5.

 

68.5 makes me nervous about thinking 75 wins.

That's fair. I'm nervous about 75 wins.

 

But as others have mentioned, Vegas lines have less to do with prediction than they do making money. Vegas doesn't put the line where they think a team will finish, they put the line so 50% of betters take the over and 50% take the under.

 

I put virtually zero stock in Vegas lines for this reason.

 

Though wow at the Cubs line. Definitely take the under there. Holy moly.