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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by old nurse

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.

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

Originally Posted by John Bonnes

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.

I seriously dont know how you could predict much under a 100 losses. This starting staff is one giant question mark. They could catch some luck but on the face it looks worse then last year and maybe historically bad. Plus, the added bonus of the defense being several runs worse with the loss of Span and Revere.

Its sad as I think they could actually score some runs...but I have a hard time seeing how they limit their opponents from scoring a lot more.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

The expertise here is in setting a line that will attract even betting on each side of the line.

Yep, and think about what it means when the books are trying to set a line that will attract betting on each side, and still come up with a number as low as 64.5 wins. All but three teams fall in the range of 71.5 to 90 wins. The Astros, Marlins, and Twins don't get enough regard even to project above 65 wins. People with money at stake really, really, really think the Twins are going to suck hard.

I am in a wager at work on Twins wins. I guessed 68 (lowest pick out of six guys). My logic was the Twins will be playing under. 500 by the time the trading deadline rolls around and will have a fire sale. That is when the losses will really start adding up. I like my chances.

There aren't enough people that care about the Twins right now for them to lose any substantial money by setting this line. If they lose any money on this wager they will get it all back from the Twins Kool-Aid drinkers who will bet on them winning the World Series.

I think the Twins are improved and play better than the past two years and end up in the low 70s for wins. Even with this they are the 14th team in the league. I think Houston goes way low and much of the rest of the league is bunched together (to a point), more parity this year than usual.

I think one point that hasn't been made has to deal with simple probability. The Twins have had 2 Teams since they came to Minnesota with 98 Losses to get the under. The 2011 Team wasn't exactly a bastion of health. The 1982 Team didn't have Joe Mauer. Teams losing this many games isn't real common with 22 such teams in the last decade. You break the numbers down further it's more likely the Twins end up 10 games above the projection mark then 10 games below. I can't guarantee the Twins won't lose 98 games. I can see why some fans believe it's possible. I just think as a probability guy it's not the most likely scenario. These are the reasons I'd take the over.