2011 MLB Over/Unders

Welcome to the 2nd annual edition of the MLB Over/Unders extravaganza. We’ll start with my regular intro to the column, and the process of picking Over/Unders, then get to this year’s picks.

A word of warning: I’m 5-0 lifetime (on actual gummi wagers…not quite perfect on suggestions). So if you believe in regression to the mean, feel free to short the hell out of these picks.

Every year around this time, I exchange emails with a smart baseball friend – we’ll call him Rollie. The conversation starts with me asking if Rollie has seen an updated list of Over/Under Win totals for MLB teams. A few days later, he collects his list, emails it to me, and we spend the next few days debating the most interesting lines. That conversation nets some of the most compelling baseball talk I’ll have all year.

The first year we broke down the lines, I found myself having to fight hard against my first problem as a baseball fan and writer: biases against lousy teams. Nothing brings out the fears and assumptions of a baseball fan more than hard predictions, with odds attached. What I learned was that you can’t look at the Washington Nationals and Kansas City Royals as uninteresting or even hopeless. The sharps that set the lines every year want to create attractive wagering possibilities on every team. They know that people will love the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox and hate the perennial doormats. So they’ll adjust the lines accordingly to even out the action on both sides.

The second lesson learned was to always consider context. You might think that the Toronto Blue Jays or Baltimore Orioles look a little frisky this year. But they also play in the toughest division in baseball, and maybe in all of North American pro sports. So if you’re trying to pin down their expected results in any given year, you have to consider the environment in which they play, and baseball’s unbalanced schedule.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Last, and here’s where you can separate the novices from the true degenerates like myself who spend way too much time thinking about this stuff: You need to consider how each individual front office operates. Is the team aggressive in trading top veterans for prospects at the deadline if they fall out of the race, or even merely drop a few games behind? Or will it hold onto aging players a year (or more) too long, hurting its rebuilding chances but enabling the club to fare a bit better than expected every year? The former makes for a good Under bet, the latter’s usually worth an Over play.

This will be the fifth year I’ve reviewed the lines and made decisions accordingly. Now, I would NEVER EVER make an illegal bet on a sporting outcome – that would be terribly wrong. But if you’re planning to be in Las Vegas between now and Opening Day, there are some nice betting opportunities on this year’s slate. Since I won’t be in Vegas this year, I will be making my usual wager of gummi bears. They’re fruity, chewy and delicious!

One final word before we dive in: You will almost never see me take a team when the odds are sharply negative, nothing at -120 or worse, for instance (for you newbies, -120 means you’re betting $120 to win $100; +115 means you’re betting $100 to win $115). Baseball is rife with uncertainty, so best to focus on bets that (nearly) double your gummi output, or better. I’m not a big believer in diversifying either. Why make three bets you like and two you’re not sure about – potentially diluting your winnings or worse – when you can make one or two wagers with conviction? Finally, all things being equal, I prefer to take the Under. Aggregate odds tend to lean slightly in favor of Under bets anyway; plus, a whole season of schadenfreude is strangely satisfying.

My picks are below. The numbers in brackets represent projections made by FanGraphs’ Fan Projections, the CAIRO projection system, and Baseball Prospectus’ PECOTA system. The idea is simply that we have some numbers out there that you can compare to the Vegas odds in making your picks. As always, you’ll want to do some research beyond those big, broad numbers.

(Also, these are for GUMMI BEAR PURPOSES ONLY. I’m not looking for credit if you win so many gummis that you need a root canal, nor blame if you go into candy debt.)

With all of that in mind, here are my two favorite picks for 2010, plus one lower-confidence choice:

Philadelphia under 97 (90, 94, 90)…-105

Another one of my favorite betting principles: Never bet on extremes. It’s really tough to win 100 games, or lose 100 games. Players, teams, and phenomena tend to gravitate toward the center, influenced by what Bill James calls the Whirlpool Principle.

We needn’t rely exclusively on fancy statistical theories for this one, though. The Phillies lost a 5-win player in Jayson Werth. The latest on Chase Utley has the Phillies pondering ways to avoid surgery for a player who’s been top five in the game when at full strength. Dominic Brown broke a bone in his hand. The bullpen’s still a question mark. Jimmy Rollins‘ MVP season seems like forever ago. Ryan Howard is still the same beastly power hitter who’s highly vulnerable late in games against lefties and struggles defensively.

Even with one of the best starting rotations in a generation, there are too many risks here to assume an extreme season. The Phillies should still be considered (slight) favorites to win the NL East. But I’m not buying 98 or more wins. Short ’em.

Tampa Bay Rays Over 84.5 (87, 88, 85)…+115

The number on the Rays last year was 88.5, I recommended the Over, and they crushed it, posting the best record in the American League with 96 wins and claiming the AL East title. This year’s version isn’t quite as strong…but they should still breeze by expectations.

Rays GM Andrew Friedman often notes that the Rays never appear in the Winners column of columnists’ Winners and Losers off-season wrap-ups. To most observers, spending the most money and making the flashiest signings is how you get to be a Winner, cutting payroll makes you an automatic loser.

There are more reasons than ever this year to doubt the Rays, to be sure. This wasn’t just one or two personnel losses. Carl Crawford and his near-MVP-level performance, headed to the Rays’ arch rivals in Boston to boot. Matt Garza’s gone. So are Carlos Pena and Jason Bartlett. Practically the entire bullpen turns over, with Rafael Soriano, Joaquin Benoit, Dan Wheeler, Grant Balfour, Randy Choate, and Chad Qualls all gone.

But the Rays have made a living off plugging in underrated players in key sports and reaping the benefits. Young power arms like Jake McGee and Adam Russell, along with better-than-you-think veterans like Joel Peralta and Kyle Farnsworth (seriously, Kyle Farnsworth) have the peripherals to suggest future success. Reid Brignac is a better defender (and at least comparable hitter) when stacked against Bartlett. Jeremy Hellickson is a Rookie of the Year front-runner who might be better than Garza right now. Pena is one of the great personalities in baseball, but replacing a .196 batting average shouldn’t be too tough. Crawford is all but irreplaceable, but Manny Ramirez and Johnny Damon signing for just over $7 million combined should help, at least on the offensive side.

Finally, the Rays do as good a job as any team of squeezing (ahem) The Extra 2% out of every possible move. Led by Joe Maddon and informed by a talented group of analytics experts and scouts, the Rays platoon, reverse-platoon, run aggressively (but intelligently) on the basepaths, and deploy unorthodox moves when necessary to regular squeeze an extra couple wins out of their roster every year.

The Rays are still a long shot to win their third AL East title in four years. But 85 wins? Very doable.

Los Angeles Angels Under 83.5 (79, 77, 78)…-105

Actually a very strong starting rotation with Jered Weaver, Dan Haren, Ervin Santana and Joel Pineiro. But this is one of baseball’s worst offenses. The news that Kendry Morales is likely to start the season on the DL only makes the bet more attractive. Sure, projection systems always hate the Angels. But they have good reason to this year.





Jonah Keri is the author of The Extra 2%: How Wall Street Strategies Took a Major League Baseball Team from Worst to First -- now a National Bestseller! Follow Jonah on Twitter @JonahKeri, and check out his awesome podcast.

29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Moe
15 years ago

The Cardinals under was also a good bet but it moved because of Wainwright.

El Magnifico
15 years ago

“The numbers in brackets represent projections made by FanGraphs’ Fan Projections”

Where are the team wins projections by the fans? Or is it just a number taken from all the individual player projections?

Chadam
15 years ago

Completely agree on the Phillies. I bet two weeks worth of “gummies” on that. Can’t believe the total is still that high, even with all of the news on Utley coming out over the last month.

johan
15 years ago

That Rays over is like taking candy from a baby. And I’ve taken plenty of candy from babies, so I have no problem doing this to Vegas.

tdotsports1
15 years ago

Phillies under appears like a solid play. The Rays over 85 makes me nervous but the Jays won exactly 85 and the ’11 Rays appear to be as strong, maybe stronger – especially on the mound.

Smack Shirts
15 years ago

Those are definitely two gimme’s. What makes the Rays SO attractive is the +115. A hobby of mine is to take a handful of teams and try to predict what I think they will win. Then take a look at Vegas and see where the big differences are. Big fan Jonah

Double D
15 years ago

Um, Howard struggles against lefties, he hits righties just fine…

Al Dimond
15 years ago

I don’t know a lot about gambling, but I think it’s sort of weird that there are odds for an over-under bet. If the Rays are paying 115 to go over 84.5, why wouldn’t they just adjust the bar — pay 100 to go over 82.5 maybe, or whatever it is exactly that the market will bear?

I’m sure they do it the way they think will bring the most action… I guess I’m just more interested in what it says about the gambling population’s estimate of each team’s strength.

Also, whether or not you’re due for regression has nothing to do with which side of these bets we should take. But you knew that.

evo34
15 years ago
Reply to  Al Dimond

Over 84.5 +115 equates to over 82.5 -160, so changing the number to 82.5 would be over-adjusting significantly. The books tend to move the number when needed to keep the odds fairly close to even.

MentholMember since 2014
15 years ago

Where can one find the latest definitive Vegas over/under benchmarks for all of the MLB teams?

evo34
15 years ago
Reply to  Menthol

Bookmaker.com, 5dimes.com, thegreek.com, among others.

MentholMember since 2014
15 years ago
Reply to  evo34

Thanks.

Adam
15 years ago

“If the Rays are paying 115 to go over 84.5, why wouldn’t they just adjust the bar — pay 100 to go over 82.5 maybe, or whatever it is exactly that the market will bear”

I believe baseball over/unders don’t adjust the line for fear of creating very hittable middles. Say I bet a lot of gummis on the Rays over 84.5 as does everyone else. So they move the line to 86.5. Now I can bet the under and if they Rays win 85 or 86 I win both bets. And I have almost no risk.

Margins for games move like this because bets are always 11:10 and hitting the middle is rare. But there’s a decent chance (maybe 20%) that the Rays hit 85 or 86 wins exactly.

evo34
15 years ago
Reply to  Adam

Sportsbooks can adjust the odds or the total. So some might adjust from over 84.5 -110 to over 85 -110 to respond to heavy action on the over. Others might leave it at 84.5 and adjust the odds to over 84.5 -125.

Also, assuming a binomial dist., the Rays are about 12.5% to get 85-86 wins.

TT
15 years ago

Where are you seeing the Rays +115 and the Phillies only -105? I see -120 and -140 respectively.

Jonah Keri
15 years ago
Reply to  TT

Those were the odds I got from my buddy who has a (I believe Bodog?) account, as of 4-5 days ago.

Jason B
15 years ago
Reply to  Jonah Keri

That may indicate that rather than adjusting the win totals up and down in response to betting activity, they may be adjusting the money line instead – just leaving the win totals alone but moving the Rays from +115 to -120, for instance.

(And those are both pretty big swings that make those bets considerably less appealling, if true.)

TT
15 years ago
Reply to  Jonah Keri

Bodog is in play right now, so lines are down but The Greek has it at -135 and -115. Angels -120.

Also, not trying to be argumentative – because I do enjoy your work – but didn’t you have Under White Sox 84.5 last year and the Braves winning the division?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonah-keri/2010-mlb-overunders_b_495772.html

Ken Bland
15 years ago

That the number on the Phils hasn’t come down suggests one thing to me.

Over/under season win totals make wonderful conversation pieces, but actual wagering action must be somewhat limited on them.

Baseball people, not to necessarily be linked with Vegas players have unifyingly questioned the Phils at every opportunity the last 3 weeks. As convictionally in terms of blowing the division away as they were before the ink was still wet on Cliff Lee’s signature.

If the outspoken opinions haven’t moved the line in order to attract over money to get some vigorish going, and soften the house’s exsposure, it suggests a lot of talk and limited action.

tbad
15 years ago

TOTAL betting noob. But why would you bet 120 to win 100? Doesn’t make any sense to me.

OzzieGuillen
15 years ago
Reply to  tbad

It’s the price premium you pay in order to play. Unless you are betting with friends, this will always be the case.

evo34
15 years ago
Reply to  OzzieGuillen

You don’t have to pay -120 on most bets.

To answer tbad’s question, you would want to pay 120 to win 100 if you thought the true chance of the event happening was higher than 54.5% (54.5/45.5 = ~1.20). Your breakeven point for a -110 bet would be 52.4%; for a +100 bet, it’s 50%, and so on. You can always compare the odds offered to your prediction of the true odds, and calculate your theoretical edge from there.

Andrew
15 years ago
Reply to  tbad

The terminology always confuses me (obviously, I rarely bet). If you win, you get your original bet back in addition to the payout.

So you’re betting 120 to receive 220, for a profit of 100.

Oak
15 years ago

In Vegas now and will post the current lines after the Zags beat jimmer. Also gunna put some gummis on a parlay involving these teams. Maybe post the lines of some other decent gummi bets if u guys want

Paul Revere
14 years ago

Hey Mr. BigShot, any chance you can let us know how you did/doing on any of your recreational bets…did you lay the money against the Phis at under 97 and the Angels under 83.5?

Jonah Keri
14 years ago
Reply to  Paul Revere

Lost on the Phillies, won on the Rays, didn’t bet the Angels (it was a lower-confidence bet, same as the White Sox under bet that I ended up not doing…in the future I’ll be writing about only the bets I actually make).

2012 O/U column next week.

knox
14 years ago

where did you end up on your betting?

Theo Odonovan
14 years ago

Good day. I found your blog using google. This is a very well written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your usefull information. Many thanks for the post 🙂