Vegas projected win totals over/under

[Halsey Hall]

The first line on the Super Bowl had Seattle minus 3.  That only lasted for hours and the line dropped to even and stayed there.  Big money drove that line down in no time. 

[Willihammer]

I want to see where the Twins stand on May 3 after 22 of 25 against the Central (barring bad weather).

 

If they are somewhere in the vicinity of .500, I'll feel like it's a pretty good start.

 

And until then, I'm going to be optimistic because I have no power over the front office and frankly, I'd rather see the sunny side than watch for storm clouds..

You need to change the thing by your avatar from Cynical Oldie to Captain Koolaid

 

Around here we assume the bottom was 2011-2012 when the farm was a wreck but Vegas and most other 3rd parties seem to think we haven't reached it yet. I can't escape the fear that maybe the Twins are the next Pirates / Royals franchise.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Around here we assume the bottom was 2011-2012 when the farm was a wreck but Vegas and most other 3rd parties seem to think we haven't reached it yet. I can't escape the fear that maybe the Twins are the next Pirates / Royals franchise.

I'm not even a little bit concerned about that because the Pirates and Royals ran incompetent franchises for two decades.

 

1. They were bad drafters. The Twins have had some stellar drafts in recent years.

 

2. They let good players in their prime seasons walk away. The Twins haven't done that since the Metrodome days and didn't hesitate to give Phil Hughes money this offseason.

 

3. They inexplicably traded prospects when they were still bad. Ryan is loathe to trade prospects and might be the most tight-fisted GM in baseball when it comes to his prospects. This almost ensures a good run of baseball, though as we saw in the 2000s, it sometimes doesn't lead to "great" baseball because Ryan seems unwilling to pursue that final piece.

 

4. They were terrible traders. They traded good players and got so little in return that it was laughable. The Twins aren't bad traders. While the Span and Revere trades haven't paid off as quickly as we'd like, they're still good trades on paper and should return positive dividends to the Twins, who didn't need Span/Revere anyway because they were terrible. By the time the Twins are legitimate contenders again, Span/Revere would be gone anyway so the actual impact of not having a legitimate CF for two seasons has been higher draft picks.

 

Sure, the Twins could fall on their faces for the next half decade but that would be luck-based more than strategy based because it would require 10+ top 100 prospects to fail miserably (which would require a extra helping of terrible luck). When you get right down to it, the Nolascos and Santanas of the world aren't going to cripple this franchise because they gave up nothing but money to get those players (well, and a second round pick for Santana but that's a problem to worry about in 2020, not 2015).

 

I'm worried that the Twins aren't rebuilding as quickly as they could but the most important aspects of the franchise - drafting and prospect development - appear to be rock solid. You couldn't say that about the Pirates and Royals of the 1990s and 2000s.

[JB_Iowa]

You need to change the thing by your avatar from Cynical Oldie to Captain Koolaid

 

 

Thanks for reminding me to make a change,

[Linus]

You need to change the thing by your avatar from Cynical Oldie to Captain Koolaid

 

Around here we assume the bottom was 2011-2012 when the farm was a wreck but Vegas and most other 3rd parties seem to think we haven't reached it yet. I can't escape the fear that maybe the Twins are the next Pirates / Royals franchise.

Around here we assume the sky is falling.  You can find a bunch of ways to be optimistic and a bunch of ways to be as pessimistic as you want.  Your choice - my choice is that I am not going to panic at least until pitchers and catchers report.....

[nicksaviking]

Per Brock's point number one, I think it's a little early to say the Twins are good drafters. We need to see the payoff. We all thought the Royals farm was awesome not that long ago. I agree with the rest though.

 

The Twins could stink for the next decade, but no matter how we feel about the Nolasco, Hughes and Santana signings, Pittsburgh and KC would have never committed that much money to free agents when they were terrible. That tells me, if all else fails they may be willing to Padre their way out of the basement.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Per Brock's point number one, I think it's a little early to say the Twins are good drafters. We need to see the payoff. We all thought the Royals farm was awesome not that long ago. I agree with the rest though.

The Royals farm system was (and still is) good. Sure, it hasn't exploded as quickly as we expected but they won more than they lost the past two years and will almost surely do the same this year.

 

When teams like the Royals of three years ago and the Twins today have farm systems of that kind, they'll be respectable at some point. They have too many good prospects to fail completely. Sure, Aaron Hicks might fail... That's why it's important to have five Aaron Hicks when you're rebuilding. Not all of them will fail.

 

The only question I have is whether the future Twins will be an 85 win team or a 95 win team and what year it will happen (2015-2018).

[diehardtwinsfan]

If I was a betting man, I'd be putting money on the over for Minnesota and Cleveland.

[Willihammer]

4. They were terrible traders. They traded good players and got so little in return that it was laughable. The Twins aren't bad traders. While the Span and Revere trades haven't paid off as quickly as we'd like, they're still good trades on paper and should return positive dividends to the Twins, who didn't need Span/Revere anyway because they were terrible. By the time the Twins are legitimate contenders again, Span/Revere would be gone anyway so the actual impact of not having a legitimate CF for two seasons has been higher draft picks.

Maybe that applies to the Pirates but if you look at the Royals' trades since the late 90s (specificallly, the Appier, Damon, Beltran, and Dye trades), they were all about turning pending free agents into top 100 prospects. Exactly the sort of moves a rebuilding, small market team is supposed to make, right? But it didn't work.

 

They sent 0.5 seasons worth of Beltran to the Mets for the #85 prospect (from the A's), Mark Teahan: 2.4 WAR, 831 games.

 

3 years of Jermaine Dye for Neifi Perez, ranked #33 at the time (2.6 WAR, 1403 games).

 

They sent a half-season Johnny Damon rental to the A's for the #15 prospect at the time, Angel Beroa (again from the A's): 1.0 WAR in 746 games.

 

They got 3 prospects for Appier in 1999 who combined for 3.0 WAR in 197 games.

 

It wasn't until Moore flipped that strategy on its ass that they finally turned things around.

 

edit: Correction, Beltran was traded with a 1/2 season of control left, not 1.5. Back in the days when you could get a supplemental pick for rentals.

[Dantes929]

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

The way to make money isn't to bet these types of lines.    Its to bet on season outcomes.    If the line on the Twins is 100-1 against making the playoffs a modest $10 bet can get you $1000.   A $1000 bet could get you $100,000.    My question is if there is any way to bet on one of these outcomes without doing so illegally or without going to Nevada.   I could see laying a couple Hondo on over under bets just for the fun of it and I won't be going to Las Vegas until October.

[tobi0040]

The way to make money isn't to bet these types of lines.    Its to bet on season outcomes.    If the line on the Twins is 100-1 against making the playoffs a modest $10 bet can get you $1000.   A $1000 bet could get you $100,000.    My question is if there is any way to bet on one of these outcomes without doing so illegally or without going to Nevada.   I could see laying a couple Hondo on over under bets just for the fun of it and I won't be going to Las Vegas until October.

 

I am guessing the odds of the Twins winning the world series aren't even that long....

[Dantes929]

I am guessing the odds of the Twins winning the world series aren't even that long....

I did a quick google check and found they are exactly 100-1 against winning the WS.    I thought Vegas odds only went up to 100 nowadays but there were 3 teams behind them and the Phillies were 300-1 against.     My memory was that the 87 Twins were something like 185-1 against and a friend of mine bet $20 on them.    Odds against the 91 Twins were also over 100-1 which makes this current Twins team more likely to win the WS than either of those teams according to the odds.    You are right though.   I typed playoffs when I meant World Series.    .

[tobi0040]

I did a quick google check and found they are exactly 100-1 against winning the WS.    I thought Vegas odds only went up to 100 nowadays but there were 3 teams behind them and the Phillies were 300-1 against.     My memory was that the 87 Twins were something like 185-1 against and a friend of mine bet $20 on them.    Odds against the 91 Twins were also over 100-1 which makes this current Twins team more likely to win the WS than either of those teams according to the odds.    You are right though.   I typed playoffs when I meant World Series.    .

 

Taking that in a linear fashion, 100-1 for the WS would be roughly 12.5 to 1 for making the playoffs (assuming the play in does not count)

[Brock Beauchamp]

Taking that in a linear fashion, 100-1 for the WS would be roughly 12.5 to 1 for making the playoffs (assuming the play in does not count)

To my knowledge, the play-in counts as the postseason. Anyone out there who cares to Google it, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[USAFChief]

I can't find postseason odds.

 

I did find the same 100-1 for the Twins to win the WS, and 50-1 to win the ALCS.

[tobi0040]

I can't find postseason odds.

 

I did find the same 100-1 for the Twins to win the WS, and 50-1 to win the ALCS.

 

Those odds seem somewhat appealing.  I think would be in a better position to make a run next year than we have been and several of the teams in the AL specifically seem to be regressing. 

[Dantes929]

Taking that in a linear fashion, 100-1 for the WS would be roughly 12.5 to 1 for making the playoffs (assuming the play in does not count)

I would be surprised if the odds would be linear but the ALCS odds support this idea.    In the 6 playoff appearances the Twins made last decade I never felt like the Twins had an equal chance except in 2006 simply because the Yankees were better but I dismissed the idea that many had that they had no chance.   Unfortunately, odds are odds and their failure supported those that said they had zero chance.    I always figured they were more like 10 or 12-1 odds against rather than the 8-1.      Its also why I was very disappointed to lose game 163 in 2008.  We would have faced the Rays  in the 1st round and had done ok against them.   KC showed that anyone can get hot.. 

[Dantes929]

Those odds seem somewhat appealing.  I think would be in a better position to make a run next year than we have been and several of the teams in the AL specifically seem to be regressing. 

I think 2016 would have better chance also but then the odds will reflect that.     I would put a fifty on the Twins reaching 69 wins this year though.  

[John Bonnes]

FWIW, I just got a notice from Bovada. The Twins number is opening a little higher, at 70.5, which is still the 2nd lowest in MLB. Here are the rest:

 

AL Central:

Detroit Tigers                            84½

Cleveland Indians                      83½

Chicago White Sox                    81½

Kansas City Royals                   79½

Minnesota Twins                        70½

 

 

 

MLB Win Totals (From Highest to Lowest)
Los Angeles Dodgers                92½
Washington Nationals                92½
Los Angeles Angels                  89½
St. Louis Cardinals                    88½
Boston Red Sox                       86½
Seattle Mariners                        86½
San Diego Padres                     85½
Detroit Tigers                            84½
San Francisco Giants                84½
Cleveland Indians                      83½
Pittsburgh Pirates                      83½
Baltimore Orioles                       82½
Chicago Cubs                           82½
Toronto Blue Jays                     82½
Chicago White Sox                    81½
Miami Marlins                            81½
New York Mets                          81½
New York Yankees                    81½
Oakland Athletics                      80½
Kansas City Royals                   79½
Milwaukee Brewers                    78½
Tampa Bay Rays                       78½
Cincinnati Reds                         77½
Texas Rangers                          77½
Houston Astros                         74½
Atlanta Braves                           73½
Arizona Diamondbacks              71½
Colorado Rockies                     71½
Minnesota Twins                        70½
Philadelphia Phillies                   68½

[Brock Beauchamp]

FWIW, I just got a notice from Bovada. The Twins number is opening a little higher, at 70.5, which is still the 2nd lowest in MLB. 

I'd still take the over but it's a much more difficult decision at that point. I expect 74-75 wins this season if some things go right and some things go wrong. 70.5 isn't far off that mark, especially with the parity in the ALC this season.

[tobi0040]

I'd still take the over but it's a much more difficult decision at that point. I expect 74-75 wins this season if some things go right and some things go wrong. 70.5 isn't far off that mark, especially with the parity in the ALC this season.

 

In other words....Vegas hates the ALCS. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

In other words....Vegas hates the ALCS. 

It's not that far off what I'd give the ALC. I think the Royals are too low but on paper, most of the ALC looks like 80-85 win teams. Obviously, 1-2 teams will break out and be slightly better and 1-2 will falter and be slightly worse but there are four decent teams in this division, all of them with question marks on the roster.

 

Unless one of the four teams jumps out with some breakthrough performances and/or stays abnormally healthy, it wouldn't surprise me if 88-89 games takes this division. The only team incapable of reaching that mark is the Twins, provided no mystical creatures sprinkle pixie dust on the team in early April.

[tobi0040]

Under on the Angels and Red Sox.  Over the Orioles.

 

On that note, in addition to the over/under predictions, we should pick the five that we are most confident about and see that record as well, i.e. who we would find the best bets.  That would be fun.

[TheLeviathan]

I expected 71-72 as the Vegas line before it was posted, so closer now to what I thought it might be.  I'd lean the over, but it wouldn't be the line I'd want to gamble on.

[jokin]

FWIW, I just got a notice from Bovada. The Twins number is opening a little higher, at 70.5, which is still the 2nd lowest in MLB. Here are the rest:

 

AL Central:

Detroit Tigers                            84½

Cleveland Indians                      83½

Chicago White Sox                    81½

Kansas City Royals                   79½

Minnesota Twins                        70½

 

 

 

 

Where's Chief when we need him? "A little higher?"  Isn't a 2 game jump in the line in just one week a bit of an anomaly? This does seem to be a better reflection of reality.  

 

Isn't this indicative of quite a LOT of money coming in on the positive side?  Still, this number only represents the exact same number as Vegas had for the Twins last year- implying that 70-71 is now even more established as the inflection point for maybe better times ahead, the only question being if it's this year, 2016 or 2017, when the nightmare of the decade so far is finally in the rearview mirror.

[USAFChief]

I would guess this is indicative of different books having different opening lines.

 

I obviously don't know, but my guess is, there hasn't been enough money bet on baseball futures yet to move anyone's opening number. You can probably find different numbers for every team if you shop around, just like you can find different numbers right up to kickoff for the Super Bowl.

 

Generally though, they aren't going to be much different.

 

I used Bovado for last years contest, IIRC.