PDA

View Full Version : Vegas has Reds' Over/Under for wins at 78.5



Blitz Dorsey
03-01-2008, 10:29 PM
What say ye? Would you take the over or under? Give me the over baby.

BTW, if you go by the odds, we're picked to finish third in the NL Central

1. Chicago 87.5 (over/under)
2. Milwaukee 84.5
3. Cincinnati 78.5
4. St. Louis 76.5
5. Houston 74.5
6. Pittsburgh 69.5

Other notables:

The highest over/under for wins is 93.5 and four teams are tied at the top (Red Sox, Tigers, Yankees, Mets).

The Dodgers are tied with the Cubs for second-best in the NL with an O/U of 87.5 wins.

The Baltimore Orioles are expected to be the worst team in MLB with an over/under of 65.5.

oneupper
03-01-2008, 10:39 PM
I like the under on Milwaukee

OnBaseMachine
03-01-2008, 10:45 PM
If the Reds can stay within five games under .500 by July then I could see this team topping 80 wins. Reasoning being because by July I think some of the young guys will start picking it up and the team will go on a nice little run.

Highlifeman21
03-01-2008, 10:49 PM
Yankees will be under that mythical 93.5.

Mets should be at or over 93.5

Red Sox should be at or over 93.5

The Tigers may have a great lineup, but who's going to pitch that team to 93.5 wins? Mark me for an under on them.


Chicago should be over 87.5
When it comes to the Reds, 78 is a number I easily see, but I also see the potential to finally become a .500 team, at best. So I'm torn. The Reds could also be a 75 team. 3rd place in the division is the absolute best I see for the Reds.

OnBaseMachine
03-01-2008, 10:58 PM
I have the Tigers winning the 2008 World Series. Their offense could score 950 runs. Carlos Guillen, Placido Polanco, Edgar Renteria, Miguel Cabrera, Gary Sheffield, Curtis Granderson, Magglio Ordonez. Sheesh. Talk about a star-studded lineup. The pitching is not quite as good as the offense but I still think it's good enough for them to win a bunch of games. Verlander is an ace at the top. Bonderman has good stuff and should return to his 2006 form if healthy. I like Dontrelle's chances of having a good year considering the league change. The Tigers have shown that they are willing to go and make the team better, so count on them to go out and acquire another starter in July if they need it.

Blitz Dorsey
03-02-2008, 02:22 AM
Is it me or are the Astros a little underrated? No question they have a lot of holes, but 74 wins? They still have a very good big four of Lee, Berkman, Tejada and Pence to carry the offense and have an ace at the top of their rotation in Oswalt. A lot of holes after that, but they at least look like a solid club. But everyone is prediciting this rebuilding year for them. I just don't see it but would love to be wrong. I've always hated the Astros. I don't think they will have a winning record by any means, but I might have to take the over here.

jmcclain19
03-02-2008, 02:23 AM
I'd so take the under on the Astros. That is going to be one bad baseball team.

BD where did you see the over/under odds?

Usually Vegas.com has the over/unders but all I see posted now are the Pennent and World Series Futures odds

http://www.vegas.com/gaming/futures/nlpennant.html

fearofpopvol1
03-02-2008, 02:31 AM
Is it me or are the Astros a little underrated? No question they have a lot of holes, but 74 wins? They still have a very good big four of Lee, Berkman, Tejada and Pence to carry the offense and have an ace at the top of their rotation in Oswalt. A lot of holes after that, but they at least look like a solid club. But everyone is prediciting this rebuilding year for them. I just don't see it but would love to be wrong. I've always hated the Astros. I don't think they will have a winning record by any means, but I might have to take the over here.

I don't think so. I'd guess 74 is an absolute best case scenario. I'm thinking they'll be more like 68-69.

Screwball
03-02-2008, 02:52 AM
Over.

I went and got one of those crystal balls on the black market yesterday. 80-82 is how it shakes out this year.

WMR
03-02-2008, 08:13 AM
The Astros are going to be pathetic this year.

They interviewed Roy Oswalt on ESPN Radio yesterday... they asked him, who's going to pitch on the four days between your starts?

He was like, "Ummmmm.... good question... Woody Williams... Brandon Backe???"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Falls City Beer
03-02-2008, 09:08 AM
The under on Milwaukee
The over on Chicago
The over on Cincy

WMR
03-02-2008, 09:39 AM
How many games do you think the Reds will win, FCB?

Where will they finish in the NL Central?

Very interested to hear your take.

Falls City Beer
03-02-2008, 09:48 AM
How many games do you think the Reds will win, FCB?

Where will they finish in the NL Central?

Very interested to hear your take.

I think the Reds could win 80-81.

I imagine the Brewers will be around that same number, 80-81. I think the Cubs will win 88-89 games.

As usual, the Vegas line looks pretty much in line with what a smart chap would guess. I trust the informed intuition of thousands of betting folks.

OnBaseMachine
03-02-2008, 11:16 AM
Is it me or are the Astros a little underrated? No question they have a lot of holes, but 74 wins? They still have a very good big four of Lee, Berkman, Tejada and Pence to carry the offense and have an ace at the top of their rotation in Oswalt. A lot of holes after that, but they at least look like a solid club. But everyone is prediciting this rebuilding year for them. I just don't see it but would love to be wrong. I've always hated the Astros. I don't think they will have a winning record by any means, but I might have to take the over here.

I would definitely take the under on the Astros. Yeah Berkman, Lee, Pence, and Tejada form a solid offense, but the pitching is going to be awful. They have two good pitchers on the roster: Roy Oswalt and Jose Valverde. Wandy Rodriguez is decent but nothing to brag about. The Astros, along with the White Sox, have the worst farm system in baseball. This is an organization is desperate need of rebuilding mode. If I were them I would deal Oswalt and Lee and maybe Berkman and try to rebuild the farm system.

RedsManRick
03-02-2008, 11:27 AM
You know, I'd love to see how Vegas sets their over/under. I imagine there's a regression to the mean effect relative to the actual record projections due to betting forces.

1. Chicago 87.5 - Over
2. Milwaukee 84.5- Over
3. Cincinnati 78.5 - Over
4. St. Louis 76.5 - Under
5. Houston 74.5 - Under
6. Pittsburgh 69.5 - Under

OnBaseMachine
03-02-2008, 11:28 AM
One more team I want to comment on - Milwaukee. I know a lot of people will disagree with him but I'll take the over on Milwaukee. I see the Brewers winning around 85-86 games this season. The offense is going to be great - Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, JJ Hardy, Bill Hall in the infield with Ryan Braun, Mike Cameron, and Cory Hart in the outfield. They'll probably score 800 runs.

The pitching will be the question mark obviously. Ben Sheets health will be the key to the Brewers chances of success. When healthy Sheets is a stud, problem is he's hurt most of the time. He's healthy at the moment and if he can remain that way and give the Brewers 28+ starts, they'll be in good shape IMO. Yovani Gallardo will be the No. 2 starter. He's got a leg injury but is only expected to miss his first two starts or so IIRC. Chris Capuano will be expected to return to 2006 form and while I don't expect him to have that type of year again, I do think he'll be much improved over last season. David Bush and Manny Parra will round out the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation. Parra is a young lefty with good stuff - he posted a sub 4.00 ERA in 26 innings late last season and struckout a batter per inning. In the bullpen, the loss of Cordero to our beloved Reds will obviously hurt, but they added Eric Gagne and David Riske to help fill the void. I could be wrong, but I think the talent is there for this team to win 85-86 games. As a Reds fan, I hope not but I if the Reds don't win the division then I would much rather see the Brewers do it than the Cubs.

Falls City Beer
03-02-2008, 11:57 AM
One more team I want to comment on - Milwaukee. I know a lot of people will disagree with him but I'll take the over on Milwaukee. I see the Brewers winning around 85-86 games this season. The offense is going to be great - Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, JJ Hardy, Bill Hall in the infield with Ryan Braun, Mike Cameron, and Cory Hart in the outfield. They'll probably score 800 runs.

The pitching will be the question mark obviously. Ben Sheets health will be the key to the Brewers chances of success. When healthy Sheets is a stud, problem is he's hurt most of the time. He's healthy at the moment and if he can remain that way and give the Brewers 28+ starts, they'll be in good shape IMO. Yovani Gallardo will be the No. 2 starter. He's got a leg injury but is only expected to miss his first two starts or so IIRC. Chris Capuano will be expected to return to 2006 form and while I don't expect him to have that type of year again, I do think he'll be much improved over last season. David Bush and Manny Parra will round out the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation. Parra is a young lefty with good stuff - he posted a sub 4.00 ERA in 26 innings late last season and struckout a batter per inning. In the bullpen, the loss of Cordero to our beloved Reds will obviously hurt, but they added Eric Gagne and David Riske to help fill the void. I could be wrong, but I think the talent is there for this team to win 85-86 games. As a Reds fan, I hope not but I if the Reds don't win the division then I would much rather see the Brewers do it than the Cubs.

The Brewers' defense is even worse than the Reds'.

OnBaseMachine
03-02-2008, 12:03 PM
The Brewers' defense is even worse than the Reds'.

That's why I think Mike Cameron was a great addition for them in centerfield.

Falls City Beer
03-02-2008, 12:05 PM
That's why I think Mike Cameron was a great addition for them in centerfield.

He's not enough.

Blitz Dorsey
03-02-2008, 12:58 PM
I'd so take the under on the Astros. That is going to be one bad baseball team.

BD where did you see the over/under odds?

Usually Vegas.com has the over/unders but all I see posted now are the Pennent and World Series Futures odds

http://www.vegas.com/gaming/futures/nlpennant.html

I got them from my online sportsbook (http://www.wsex.com/). Go to "Baseball" and then there's a listing for "Regular Season Wins" under the "Straight Wager" section.

So, I guess "Vegas" is a misnomer, this place is actually out of Antigua, but their lines always open the same as Vegas'.

RedFanAlways1966
03-02-2008, 12:59 PM
1. Chicago 87.5 (over/under)
2. Milwaukee 84.5
3. Cincinnati 78.5
4. St. Louis 76.5
5. Houston 74.5
6. Pittsburgh 69.5

2007 Wins
1. Chicago 85 UP
2. Milwaukee 83 UP
3. Cincinnati 72 UP
4. St. Louis 78 DOWN
5. Houston 73 UP
6. Pittsburgh 68 UP

(a) All teams improve from 2007 except the Cards.
(b) Vegas predicts the NL Central being 12 games better.

I am not a betting type, however... all the add'l wins must come from playing the other 2 NL divisions and interleague play. Has the NL Central improved that much in the off-season compared to other divisions in MLB?

DEBBIE DOWNER (or Debbie Under) says... put $100 down on each team to be UNDER. In the end I'd think you'd come out with more money in your pocket than the $600 you put down on the bets. What do you think?

Blitz Dorsey
03-02-2008, 01:07 PM
OK, you guys have convinced me on the Astros. They are going to suck. I feel much better now. Oswalt will still probably look like Cy Young against us, but other than that they will suck. OK, Berkman will hit 1/3 of his HRs against us, but other than that they are going to suck. They really have no pitching to speak of behind Oswalt and I wouldn't be surprised if Valverde falls apart as a closer.

KronoRed
03-02-2008, 01:47 PM
Take the under, and bet a lot.

Blitz Dorsey
03-02-2008, 02:18 PM
Take the under, and bet a lot.

Yeah, like I'm going to take advice from a Gator fan ;-)

Jpup
03-03-2008, 07:09 AM
What say ye? Would you take the over or under? Give me the over baby.

BTW, if you go by the odds, we're picked to finish third in the NL Central

1. Chicago 87.5 (over/under)
2. Milwaukee 84.5
3. Cincinnati 78.5
4. St. Louis 76.5
5. Houston 74.5
6. Pittsburgh 69.5

Other notables:

The highest over/under for wins is 93.5 and four teams are tied at the top (Red Sox, Tigers, Yankees, Mets).

The Dodgers are tied with the Cubs for second-best in the NL with an O/U of 87.5 wins.

The Baltimore Orioles are expected to be the worst team in MLB with an over/under of 65.5.

I would say that it's pretty darn close to how it will end up. Houston is going to be horrible and I'm not sure St. Louis is going to be any better. I almost think Pittsburgh will finish about both of them. Houston may be the worst team in the NL and possibly all of baseball. Baltimore would give them a run for their money as would San Francisco. The Giants do have some pitching though.

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 08:23 AM
I've got to take the under on the Reds.

They only won 72 games last season. Overall, the quality of the division is roughly the same.

Cordero will help this year, but they also subtracted Hamilton and are depending on a lot of kids and questionable vets (Stanton, Maj, Weathers, Fogg, Afedlt) for innings. Plus they were very lucky to be very healthy next year.

I just don't see where the Reds get a 6 game improvement. It's certainly possible if some of the Rookies come on strong, but I just don't see that happening in 2008. I think the kids will start to gel in 2009.

I also think Bruce (or whoever else is in CF) will struggle to replace Hamilton in 2008. Bruce may eventually be a star, but he will struggle if he is given the job this year.

Thus, I pick the under.

remdog
03-03-2008, 11:13 AM
I'm not convinced (or at least I'm hopeful still at this point) that the Reds will continue to roll the dice with Stanton, Majewski, Fogg, Afleldt et al. I think it's fairly possible that at least two of those four don't make the opening day roster.

Personally, I'm in the camp of liking the Hamilton trade. My main complaint is that the Reds didn't get the upper tier starter that signing Cordero and Dusty indicated was needed to make a run for the roses in this division for '08. I like the kids for the future but this division was ripe for the picking had that move been made.

Having said that, I think the kids will mature enough in the second half to possibly get the Reds to .500 the way they look on 3/3/08.

Rem

Falls City Beer
03-03-2008, 11:22 AM
I'm not convinced (or at least I'm hopeful still at this point) that the Reds will continue to roll the dice with Stanton, Majewski, Fogg, Afleldt et al. I think it's fairly possible that at least two of those four don't make the opening day roster.

Personally, I'm in the camp of liking the Hamilton trade. My main complaint is that the Reds didn't get the upper tier starter that signing Cordero and Dusty indicated was needed to make a run for the roses in this division for '08. I like the kids for the future but this division was ripe for the picking had that move been made.

Having said that, I think the kids will mature enough in the second half to possibly get the Reds to .500 the way they look on 3/3/08.

Rem

Essentially my take on the situation.

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 01:05 PM
I'm not convinced (or at least I'm hopeful still at this point) that the Reds will continue to roll the dice with Stanton, Majewski, Fogg, Afleldt et al. I think it's fairly possible that at least two of those four don't make the opening day roster.


I hope it works out that way. But I think Wayne signed Fogg and Afedlt because he didn't think the kids were ready. I expect them to be on the team all year unless they are totally horrible. I don't
expect them to pitch so poorly that Wayne releases them.

Likewise, we have Mercker and Saurbek in camp because this is a transition year, and we need bodies to absorb the innings.
I see Wayne looking at 2009 or 2010. I think Dusty and Cordero were part of his long term plan.

Now, I have no idea what Wayne's plans for Stanton and Maj are.
I am going to guess that Stanton will be given 6-8 weeks minimum to prove himself worthy.

*BaseClogger*
03-03-2008, 04:57 PM
I've got to take the under on the Reds.

They only won 72 games last season. Overall, the quality of the division is roughly the same.

Cordero will help this year, but they also subtracted Hamilton and are depending on a lot of kids and questionable vets (Stanton, Maj, Weathers, Fogg, Afedlt) for innings. Plus they were very lucky to be very healthy next year.

I just don't see where the Reds get a 6 game improvement. It's certainly possible if some of the Rookies come on strong, but I just don't see that happening in 2008. I think the kids will start to gel in 2009.

I also think Bruce (or whoever else is in CF) will struggle to replace Hamilton in 2008. Bruce may eventually be a star, but he will struggle if he is given the job this year.

Thus, I pick the under.

If you buy into this kind of stuff, the Reds Pythagorean W-L last season was 75-87. In that case, 75 wins would be the starting point. I think the offense will be about the same, with improved pitching in the last few months of the season for about 78 to 82 wins...

REDREAD
03-03-2008, 05:22 PM
If you buy into this kind of stuff, the Reds Pythagorean W-L last season was 75-87. In that case, 75 wins would be the starting point. I think the offense will be about the same, with improved pitching in the last few months of the season for about 78 to 82 wins...

I see the pitching as a wildcard. It might improve, it might not.

Let's look at the likely roster. Outside of Cordero, Harang, and Arroyo, everyone else is pretty much a wildcard.

For example, as much as we want Belisle to emerge as a solid starter, he might remain the same or regress.

Adding Cordero helps. Hopefully subtracting Milton helps (hopefully, his replacement is better). But we got a good year out of Weathers last year (might not repeat). We also got a solid 1/2 year out of Lohse which needs replacing.

Hopefully Coffey bounces back, and they can get one of the lefties to produce. I see a lot of ifs beyond the three established guys I named.

Also, while the Pythag is useful, it has its limitations. The Reds had a both ends of the spectrum on their pitching staff. In reality, Harang doesn't "Average out" a Milton. ie. if Harang wins 5-1 that really doesn't help the next day if Milton gives up 5 runs in 3 innings.
I guess I don't see the argument that the Reds were unlucky or underachieved last year. I think their W-L was pretty reflective of their performance.

*BaseClogger*
03-03-2008, 05:37 PM
I see the pitching as a wildcard. It might improve, it might not.

Let's look at the likely roster. Outside of Cordero, Harang, and Arroyo, everyone else is pretty much a wildcard.

For example, as much as we want Belisle to emerge as a solid starter, he might remain the same or regress.

Adding Cordero helps. Hopefully subtracting Milton helps (hopefully, his replacement is better). But we got a good year out of Weathers last year (might not repeat). We also got a solid 1/2 year out of Lohse which needs replacing.

Hopefully Coffey bounces back, and they can get one of the lefties to produce. I see a lot of ifs beyond the three established guys I named.

Also, while the Pythag is useful, it has its limitations. The Reds had a both ends of the spectrum on their pitching staff. In reality, Harang doesn't "Average out" a Milton. ie. if Harang wins 5-1 that really doesn't help the next day if Milton gives up 5 runs in 3 innings.
I guess I don't see the argument that the Reds were unlucky or underachieved last year. I think their W-L was pretty reflective of their performance.

The only good pitching they will lose from last year was that half a season from Lohse. The regression by Weathers will be cancelled out by the acquisition of Cordero. THAT IS IT... Surely they will find a couple of young pitchers to give them better starts than the scrubs they ran out there last season?