Change-UpMarch 25, 2008
2008 Over Unders
By Patrick Sullivan

Last season I decided to run a piece putting myself out there with picks on Over/Under MLB team win totals. Well the 2008 numbers are very much in and I want to take another stab. Here is how I introduced last year's predictions.


Many would argue that the crux of Sabermetrics is that you can predict a team's win total by analyzing a team's ability to score and prevent runs. Virtually all other research aimed at determining what contributes to a baseball club's winning efforts, on both an individual and team-wide level, is derived from this finding. Sabermetric projection mechanisms with these principles at their core offer a neat opportunity for the enterprising individual to take advantage of Vegas over/under win totals.

Now, projections are never fool-proof and are often downright inaccurate. Just ask Tigers fans from last season. But I happen to believe that the astute fan has the opportunity to stick one to Vegas on these (hey, it makes up for football season). So without further ado, let me try my hand at each MLB team. I will offer up my prediction (over or under) and then briefly account for why I believe the arbitrage opportunity exists. And yeah, I will be on the record here so just as I stated back on Valentine's Day, feel free to check back and ridicule me if it turns out I am just dead wrong on a lot of these.

Last season I went 21-9, while mentioning that the White Sox and D-Backs represented the "easiest money on the board." Not bad. Onto my picks...

===========================

National League

Arizona - Over 87.5 (-105) Under 87.5 (-125)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

That even though they played above their heads when you look at their 2007 Pythag, they added Dan Haren and have a lineup full of young talent that figures to begin to come together in 2008.

==============

Atlanta - Over 86.5 (-105) Under 86.5 (-125)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

That with John Smoltz hurt, this could be one of the very worst starting fives in all of baseball. They'll hit, though.

==============

Chicago Cubs - Over 88 (-110) Under 88 (-110)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

Not much. 88 sounds like it might be about right but I suspect the odds might underestimate the impact Kosuke Fukudome figures to have.

==============

Cincinnati - Over 78 (-125) Under 78 (-105)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

That the front end of their rotation, Francisco Cordero and the potential upgrades coming in the form of Jay Bruce and Joey Votto should push them closer to the .500 mark (if not better).

==============

Colorado - Over 83 (-125) Under 83 (-105)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

That this rotation after Jeff Francis looks really shaky if you aren't yet buying what Ubaldo Jimenez and Franklin Morales are selling.

==============

Florida - Over 69 (-110) Under 69 (-120)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

Florida is bad but 69 wins is pretty crappy. Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez (especially Ramirez) are really good.

==============

Houston - Over 74.5 (-105) Under 74.5 (-125)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

After Roy Oswalt, this rotation is just so, so bad.

==============

Los Angeles Dodgers - Over 87 (-105) Under 88.5 (125)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

There are indications that Joe Torre may get the right guys on the field, after all.

==============

Milwaukee - Over 85 (-110) Under 85 (-120)

Prediction: Over

I am buying the "Rickie Weeks is poised to go crazy" story.

==============

New York Mets - Over 93 (-120) Under 93 (-110)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

That there is injury risk all over the place on this team. I don't necessarily think they miss 93 by much but they're in a good division and I just don't see them getting enough out of Carlos Delgado, Moises Alou or Pedro Martinez to get to 93.

==============

Philadelphia - Over 87 (-105) Under 87 (-125)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

Aaron Rowand was really great last year.

==============

Pittsburgh - Over 70.5 (-125) Under 70.5 (-105)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

They were a 70 Pythag-win team last season with young talent and bounce-back guys everywhere.

==============

San Diego - Over 84 (-125) Under 84 (-105)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

The young and talented infield will not overcome the old and washed up outfield. The talented bullpen will not overcome the thin rotation. One of the better bets on this list if you ask me.

==============

San Francisco - Over 70.5 (-125) Under 70.5 (-115)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

That this lineup will be one of the very worst in recent memory.

==============

St. Louis - Over 75.5 (-115) Under 75.5 (-115)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

No pitching at all, no hitting after Albert Pujols and a gimpy Troy Glaus.

==============

Washington - Over 71.5 (-115) Under 71.5 (-115)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

The non-existent starting pitching depth scares me but there are a bunch of good bats in that lineup and the bullpen is ok. More like 73-75 wins I think.

============================

American League

Baltimore - Over 65.5 (-115) Under 65.5 (-115)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

Nothing. 65.5 seems good to me. I guess I think it could go under because I think Brian Roberts might be heading out of town.

==============

Boston - Over 94 / Under 94

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

Josh Beckett is hurt and folks may be placing a little too much stock in too many of Boston's youngsters.

==============

Chicago White Sox - Over 78 (-105) Under 78 (-125)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

Maybe not that much anymore. I will still take the under because their good players are old and they are far too dependent on a few players that should not be regular MLB'ers.

==============

Cleveland - Over 90 (-105) Under 90 (-125)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

They are a young team coming off a 91-win Pythag year. Travis Hafner should bounce back some, too.

==============

Detroit - Over 93 (-105) Under 93 (-125)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

No way. For all of the hoopla surrounding their off-season upgrades, there is very little attention being paid to the regression candidates and age/injury risk that is on that roster.

==============

Kansas City - Over 73.5 (-125) Under 73.5 (-105)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

I dunno but I kind of like these guys. I think the pitching is good enough (especially the bullpen) and breakout from either Alex Gordon or Billy Butler could push them north of this figure.

==============

Los Angeles Angels - Over 91 (-115) Under 91 (-115)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

That John Lackey and Kelvim Escobar are critical to this team's success.

==============

Minnesota - Over 74 (-125) Under 74 (-105)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

74 sounds about right to me. I think I'll take the under by a tad.

==============

New York Yankees - Over 93.5 (-120) Under 93.5 (-110)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

That the Yanks have the depth and resources to overcome problems that may emanate from their Opening Day rotation...that the offense is still really awesome...that they won 94 games last season without meaningful contributions from their promising youngsters.

=============

Oakland Athletics - Over 73.5 / Under 73.5

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

That the pitching is going to be steady and the lineup decent enough to allow them to hover around .500. An average team in nearly every sense.

==============

Seattle - Over 84 (-105) Under 84 (-125)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

Another great pick. The back end of the rotation is awful, the defense is awful, the offense is awful.

==============

Tampa Bay - Over 76.5 (-110) Under 76.5 (-120)

Prediction: Over

What is Vegas missing here?

I will just leave up what I said about Tampa Bay last season.

That Tampa Bay has a bunch of really good baseball players in their system and that this is the year they start to make some legitimate noise. The starting pitching leaves plenty to be desired but there is enough punch in that lineup to push their win total to around 75.
=============

Texas - Over 75 (-125) Under 75 (-105)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

That rotation. Look at it.

==============

Toronto - Over 85 (-105) Under 85 (-125)

Prediction: Under

What is Vegas missing here?

That the injury bug looks poised to take them out once again this season. Scott Rolen and BJ Ryan start the year on the shelf.

=============

OK folks, have at it. Who do you like? Where did I mess up? What's the one pick you take with a gun to your head?

Comments

Your WA comment makes it look like you meant "Over" 71. As for the TX, does that rotation say "over"?

Fixed. Thanks, GC.

I think your best bet is the under on San Diego. I really hate that outfield, and particularly in that park where you need a lot of speed out there. And I am unconvinced about the last two spots in the rotation, and not even sure Maddux is even a #3 anymore. The only easy mark in that division is the Giants, and I think the rest of the teams will carve SD up on a regular basis.

My other best bet is Kansas City. I think that unlike the Rays their improvements and possibilities have been more or less ignored in the mainstream, but those are two enormously talented hitters who may reach their stride this year, and there are some pretty decent starters and a potentially excellent closer on hand as well. I would definitely take the over there.

Its Kosuke Fukudome not Kyosuke Fukudome, learn how to speak proper Japanese.

I think maybe you need to learn how the money line works. For instance at -125, Vegas is saying Detroit is more likely to go under that total. The bigger the minus number, the more prohibitive a favorite it is.

Eh, I just think that even at -105, under 93 is the better bet.

Thanks, though.

Pretty good analysis, but I have a weakness for my Cards, I think they can get to .500 this year, although it could be a long year.

If you had to pick 4 best bets who would they be????

I will say PIT, DET, SD, OAK

Great work. I'm interested in Philly though. You say that Vegas underestimates how much Rowand meant. If Lidge were healthy, do you think that upgrade could compensate for the loss of Rowand? I'm a Mets' fan and when I first thought about these changes I thought it would be a wash.

All looks good, though I think the under on the Giants is your safest bet. That lineup is woeful...absolutely, abhorrently woeful. They'll be lucky to win 65 games this year.

Tigers won 88 last year with a rash of injuries (all 5 starters were on the DL at some point, Rodney and Zumaya missed significant time). Adding Cabrera, Willis, Renteria and Jones doesn't pick them up 5 games?

I'm thinking Cabrera does that by himself.

Under 78 wins for a White Sox team that seeming underperformed at every position last year? Sorry, don't agree with you on that one. Players are older? Yes. Will they all be that terrible again? Not likely. Give me the over until the line thinks that this team is an over-.500 ballclub

Sully-

"with John Smoltz hurt, this could be one of the very worst starting fives in all of baseball."

He's going to miss 1 start.

And "very worst starting five in all of baseball"? Have you seen the Marlins and the Nats lately? How about the Astros or Cards? And that's just the NL. The Braves will still have Hudson who is better than anyone on the above-mentioned clubs with the exception of Oswalt (and arguably Wainwright), and there's no question that Atlanta's got better depth than any of those teams.

And again, Smoltz is out for just one game; he's going to start in the second series of the year against the Mets.

I don't mean to sound shrill, and I realize that there's not a whole lot of analysis that can be put into one line, but that comment just seemed completely off-base.

Also: "They'll hit, though." I agree. :-)

I'd go with the Over on Cleveland- good young lineup, great bullpen.

Also, I wouldn't mind someone making me do a preseason over/under with a gun to my head, because I know I'm going to live at least another six months... ;-)

Where can you find -110 on TB over 76.5? The lines I see are -190 over 75.5....

I can't understand, given your reasoning, why New York is an over and Boston is an under. It would seem that the major variance in their season will come from the "youth" you identified, but how is Boston overrelying on youth, and yet not New York?

Sure, Beckett is hurt now, but the same thing that's set him back happened to me randomly over the summer...it totally wipes you out for a few weeks, but once it's gone, it's gone...so that shouldn't be a long term problem. New York, on the other hand, has recieved some bad news so far on Pettitte, and he looks like he could have injury troubles all year.

When it comes right down to it, the only risky youth that Boston is relying on is Buchholz...too many people are putting too much stock into Ellsbury's "downside", and Lester has a pretty solid floor. On the other hand, we still don't know what Hughes or Kennedy can deliver over a full season, and Chamberlain is not guaruntee at all as a starter. Whose youth is riskier?

And in the end, if it comes down in your mind to New York's lineup...where does its bullpen figure in? That thing could be a mess by midseason, while Boston's looks about as reliable as a bullpen can get. Bottom line: I see no reason why these teams should be all that different from one another, so I'd take both as unders or overs...but together.

well done buddy,and good luck

Regarding Detroit, is Cabrera going to singlehandedly offset decline from career years by Magglio Ordonez and Placido Polanco? Even considering the downgrade in fielding from Inge to him?

And what's going on with that pitching staff?

I was just wondering, why do you concider the back of SEA rotation to be awful? I believe that Jarrod Washburn, Carlos Silva and Miguel Batista are three league average starters who can easily combine for 30-35 wins at least. They are not injury-prone so they can have an OK season

You're going to get burned underestimating the Angels again. LAA has the pitching depth to survive without Lackey and Escobar.

Educate me please: why do the Dodgers have different numbers for their over/under? also, I could use a better explanation of the money line. Thanks.

From ReplacementLevel.com,
here are projected wins based on the common projection systems.

Vegas looks pretty close upon first glance.

I admire your courage, putting your neck out there like this. Also, I mostly agree with you down the line. I'm sorry, as a Bosox fan, that you predict under 94 wins for them. I think your reasoning is a bit off, as Beckett will probably miss only 2-3 starts.

The best bet I see on there is under for Detroit. I feel sorry for Tigers fans.

The Replacementlevel.com simulations agree with you on 13 out of the 30 picks. However, where there are more than four games difference between the games won it predicts and the Vegas line, the simulations agree with you four out of four times. TB and OAK win 6 more games than Vegas posts. SEA loses 7 extra games. CWS loses 4 extra games. It strikes me that pure chance (the statistics of coin flipping) is going to determine most of these outcomes rather than anyone's knowledge of exactly how many games a team is going to win. Just so you know, I have nothing to do with the simulations. I am betting nothing, but would not discourage others from replicating your TB and OAK bets for real money.

Echoing what someone said earlier: how can you go 'under' on Boston for relying on young talent and 'over' on the Yankees for relying on young talent too?

I guess you're saying that they could trade for the talent they need, but starting pitching is expensive and I don't expect them to mortgage the farm for a short-term shot at winning.

I think that the main issue on the Yankee / Sox is simply that the offensive side is much more clearly favorable to the Yankees (they outscored the Bo-Sox by 100+ runs last year!). while on the pitching side some regression to means (on both end) will seem to favor the Yankees a little more.

for one. the bullpen is a real area to watch this year. last year the Sox basically had a completley bullpen with EVERY pitcher being well above average. that simply doesn't happen on a normal bases and quiet a few of those guys are suspects (Lopez / Timlin / Snyder anyone?) and while Papalbon and Okajima are truely good. their lofty height is difficult to maintain .

It could go either way really. I don't think the seperation between the two team is as big as perceived by a lot of the talking heads on mainstream media though.

as for the Tigers... let's see...

Rentaria is a career OPS+ 97 guy. Sean Casey hit 97 OPS+ last year. Rentaria is obviously a more valuable piece than Casey and a better bet going foward. but he's unlikely to be a signifciant upgrade over Casey's bat last year.

looking up and down their lineup. the only guy that I think have a better chance of improving then regressing might actually be old man Sheffield due to the injuries. Miguel is likely to stay around the same. while everyone else seems like a major regression candidate for various reasons. (Magglio / Polanco / Granderson due to statsical possibilties... Guillen due to trends and Pudge / Jones becuase they're # suggested collapse danger last year )

The Tigers had injuries last year... but who didn't ? (well maybe the Bo-Sox to some extend) their rotation is also pretty questionable despite a lot of big names. Bonderman and Willis' talent are undeniable. but so have been their well documented struggles and inconsistencies. Kenny Rogers is now the oldest pitcher in the league and was already battling injuries. Robertson is most likely what he was in every year other than 06. hell even Verlander. doesn't 400 IP in 2 year before age 24 scare you? and the depth behind that is just non-existent.

when looking at guys you need to see the bigger picture and not just what they did last year. was he hurt? how likely is he to come back? was his season last year the norm ? was it underperforming or over performing? is he likely to regress / improve given the context? all of these need to be taken into account.


The Cardinals will win 85+ this year. Best bet on the board is them going over the number.

So many of last year's bad-to-horrible fielding performers have been jettisoned (Encarnacion, Eckstein, and Edmonds were among the worst defenders in the league at their positions), the glovework is bound to improve markedly--Hardballtimes numbers have Glaus the equal or better than Rolen with the leather, as well.

The Cardinals got nearly 400 innings of 7.00 ERA "pitching" from the worst of their contributors last year. Replace them with guys posting a 5.00 ERA in 2008, and the team gains nearly 10 wins right there. (Compare this to, say, the Cubs, who had no one on their staff last year with an ERA over 5.00 in 20+ IP. A notable lack of badness is admirable...but it leaves little room for imprvement, too.)

As Cardinals last year (63 IP apiece), Pineiro and Wellemeyer had ERAs in the mid-upper 3's. Dave Duncan has renovated numerous veteran righties over the past two dozen seasons. Given Duncan's looong history, why do people think Wellemeyer & Pineiro were flukes?

Wainwright's first year as an MLB starter began quite badly. Then, after May 15 he posted an ERA of 2.96. He won't maintain *that*, of course, but he could well be better than last year's 3.70 overall performance.

Last year's backup catchers wound up with 40% of the playing time, and were beyond putrid both offensively and behind the dish. LaRue apparently can't hit any more, but compared to the 2007 slugs, he can negate the running game enough to improve the team by a win, maybe two.

It wouldn't shock me if St. Louis wins 90+ games. Not a bit.

Cardinals 90+ wins... Wow! That will be a great team!

I think the Texas line is pretty reasonable, and might even be tempted to take the over.

The main objection seems to be the rotation, but while there are certainly question marks there, there is also talent. It was not long ago that Millwood, Padilla and Jennings had solid seasons, and while injuries are a concern, none are particularly old and all three, if healthy, maintain at least decent BB and K rates.

As for Gabbard and Mendoza, they too have shown some promise in brief major league trials. I don't think it is a disastrously bad rotation. And there is some offensive talent at the core of the team, especially if it is true that Blalock's problems the last few years have been injury related and he is really over them now.

In a division without a dominant offensive team (I think the Angels are less impressive offensively than their reputation suggests), the Rangers could remain competitive.

What is Vegas missing here?


Aaron Rowand was really great last year.


What is Vegas missing here?


Florida is bad but 69 wins is pretty crappy. Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez (especially Ramirez) are really good.



So you're saying that Las Vegas doesn't know how good Hanley Ramirez is? That the odds-makers concocted the numbers without researching Aaron Rowand?

a lot of these breakdowns are silly

You´re definitaly not a Seattle fan (I´m not either) but the offence is awful? You don´t mean than seriously...

Seattle's offense is awful, they have very little upside (well they could call up Clement / Balentien and or Lopez could remember how to hit ) their vets are more likely to decline than not (Ichiro! had one of his better years . Ibanez is showing signs of decline. Sexson looks like he's done. and i'll eat my hat if Vidro continue to hit like that ) they lost Guillen and replaced him with Brad "can't even hit in Arlington" Wilkerson .

Seattle's offense may be awful, but the back end of their rotation isn't. All three put up ~4.3 ERAs last year, and have career ERAs under 4.5. For the back end of an AL rotation, that's pretty damn good.