crockpot's baseball picks 4/1-4/7 (incl futures)

[crockpot]

i'm known here mainly as a futures bettor, but i'm working on expanding my system to incorporate single-game bets. at the very least, i'm only paying 2.2% juice, so i can't get killed too badly, right?

to prove how well this transformation went, i'll follow up this post with...a long list of props and futures i endorse, and if i feel bored enough, writeups.

stay tuned.

[Chicago]

Waiting for your post. I bought the cubs on the over at 82 wins any thoughts?

Chicago

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
Waiting for your post. I bought the cubs on the over at 82 wins any thoughts?

Chicago

[/ QUOTE ]

-110? I likey.

[crockpot]

some 2007 props i like and have bet heavily:

White Sox under (insert number) W
Diamondbacks over 78.5 W
Dodgers under 88.5 W
Blue Jays under 87.5 W

these all pass my two main criteria for betting:

1. the projection test

Baseball Prospectus projected standings
RLYW Projection Blowout

Hardball Times projections

Dayn Perry's MLB power rankings

etc. etc.

as nate silver pointed out in a recent BP chat, some of the projection systems are down on the DBacks because they don't do minor league translations well. the better ones, like PECOTA and the new hardball times projections, are more optimistic towards arizona's chances.

the projections are basically unanimous on most of these teams.

2. the 'why is the line set here' test

White Sox: 189 wins the past two years, plenty of players who have established unreasonable expectations for 2007 (dye, erstad, garland, thome, lots more)

Arizona: underperformed their pythagorean wins last year, lots of great rookies coming up, solid but underrated offseason trades, underrated because they have no media stars.

Dodgers: a flurry of offseason activity covered for the fact that they lost (drew, maddux, lugo, lofton, gagne) or benched (kemp, loney, laroche) more talent than they added.

Blue Jays: benefited from breakout/fluke seasons last year (JOHNSON, rios, ryan, WELLS, overbay). decline from these guys will more than offset frank thomas' impact, but the public refuses to accept that.

as a side note, bodog and the greek, and maybe others, have a LAD-ARI season series line where the Diamondbacks are dogs even though they have a better team this year. i recently saw Arizona at +155 on bodog.

[whipsaw]

now THIS looks like an awesome thread that I will love to read even well beyond 4/7. pls keep them coming crockpot

[crockpot]

edited to credit Card08 for pointing a lot of these out to me.

player props:

Joe Blanton under 15.5 W
Ervin Santana under 15 W
Jon Garland under 16.5 W
Gary Matthews Jr. under .302 BA
Bobby Jenks under 38 Sv
Francisco Rodriguez over 1.90 ERA
Justin Morneau under 127 RBI
Mike Piazza over 59.5 RBI
Takashi Saito under 35.5 Sv
Ben Sheets over 170 K
Huston Street over 2.24 ERA
Justin Verlander under 15.5 W
Barry Zito under 16 W

most of these are at bodog.

with a few exceptions (verlander and the closers), these props require a minimum of 140 games or 25 starts (pitchers) for action. this explains why i bet the sheets and piazza overs, as they are very likely to beat those totals anytime they stay healthy, but it does hurt the win total unders since an injury is no longer an automatic victory.

still, i don't know how anyone, even hawk harrelson or ozzie, can think jon garland will win 17 games this year. you'll notice several common links between the starters i chose:

- not the best starter on his own team
- fluky high win totals in past years
- team will win fewer games in 2007 than in 2006

as for the others, saito and jenks both are at the risk of being replaced after early ineffectiveness, pitch for teams that will win fewer games than projected, and come with inherent risk (saito's mediocre japanese numbers and jenks' control, injury, and poor spring). morneau, street, and k-rod have established levels of performance that they cannot keep up.

matthews...if you think he has a chance in hell of batting .302 in a full season, there's a for sale sign on my bridge.

Field to win AL Cy Young 10-1
Field to win NL Cy Young 10-1
Tie for ML lead in pitcher wins 5-1

the tie looks like it happens roughly one year in three. i have no idea why the line was ever this good, but i think it's been bet down now by anyone who can check baseball-reference.

as for the field bets, first, it's important to keep in mind that the league leader in wins is the favorite, so this award is prone to a luckbox winner like colon in '05. here are some names that are part of the field, among many others with an outside shot:

AL:
Lackey
Haren
Escobar
Mussina

NL:
Peavy
Harang
Garcia
Hamels

yes, that would be jake peavy, probably the first person i draft if i'm in a pool to name this year's cy winner.

both of these are still 10-1 on bodog.

[crockpot]

AL team futures

refer to the earlier post for links to projections.

Cleveland Indians
to win division 4-1
to win AL 14-1
to win WS 25-1

the projections love them, and why not? they had 90-win talent last year but wasted it by winning a lot of slaughter rule games and blowing the close ones. i had to double-check to make sure that fausto carmona actually failed to convert a single save last year, even though he is a good pitcher.

assuming eric wedge deploys his troops well, the indians should be even better, because they have a ton of platoon players (nixon, michaels, dellucci) who will perform better in limited roles.

i'd estimate their true odds at 2.3-1 to win division, 9-1 to win league, 15-1 to win WS.

Minnesota Twins
to win division 4-1
to win AL 14-1
to win WS 25-1

the AL/WS lines peaked at 15/1 and 30/1 (actually, the indians ones did too), but have been bet down by some sharps who realize, hey, maybe this team is pretty good.

even without liriano, the twins return a very solid core of top talent in mauer, morneau, santana, and nathan. the bullpen is absolutely sick and will remain so even with some regression. just look at their domination in pitching rate stats despite playing in the much stronger league last year.

the twins should do well in the playoffs as a team built around a core of power pitching and defense, and one that could conceivably be much better in october than april just by promoting garza and slowey from within--and maybe even bringing liriano back for relief in the playoffs.

estimated true odds: 1.7-1, 6.5-1, 11-1.

Other bets
Orioles to win division 100-1
Mariners to win division 14-1

i don't think either of these teams are particularly better than the public does, but i do think the public underestimates the chances of an unlikely division champ. the tigers, after all, opened at 30-1 to win their division and 100-1 to win the AL last year.

[crockpot]

NL team futures

refer to earlier post for projection links

Arizona Diamondbacks
to win division 6-1
to win NL 25-1
to win WS 60-1

my favorite play of the year. i'm just quoting widely available lines here, but i got as high as 9-1, 35-1, and 100-1. kyleb says he got even better on the NL.

teams that are ready to shock the world are always good futures bets because the sportsbook underestimates not only their chances of advancing to the next stage but also of winning future rounds. who would have guessed at any point in 2006 that the tigers would open as a 2-1 favorite in the WS?

Arizona is another pitching-and-defense team, but unlike the top-heavy Twins, they have a balanced lineup with no real weak spots, plus a very deep and talented bench. except for Webb, no possible single injury can cripple them given their surplus of dependable replacements.

estimated true odds: 2.3-1, 8-1, 20-1

Colorado Rockies
to win division 15-1
to win NL 50-1

the rockies should have near-.500 talent this year, and between the inherent variance in baseball and an NL with zero dominant teams, they should have a far better chance than these lines indicate. they also have a young lineup with reasonable breakout potential.

as we all know, betting sports isn't about having a crystal ball, it's about finding value. if you choose to pass on these longshots, i can't blame you, but i would much rather take a bet with an estimated ROI of around 100% than a 6-team parlay.

estimated true odds: 7-1, 25-1

Milwaukee Brewers
to win division 7-1
to win NL 25-1

everyone's favorite surprise team from last year. Joe Sheehan writes each year about "post-hype sleepers" in fantasy, the guys who still own all the skills that projected a breakout last year, but their images have soured in the mind of fantasy managers.

in a way, the brewers are this year's post-hype sleeper team. they were supposed to ride to the playoffs last year on the backs of players who got hurt (sheets, weeks, hardy), were ineffective (davis) or traded (lee).

this year's team has just as many breakout candidates: sheets and weeks again (if they stay healthy), fielder, dave bush, ryan braun, corey hart. if bill hall can handle center, the team should get above-average offense from five positions, with third base the only real weak spot, assuming braun doesn't come save the day by magically learning to field. the rotation includes the NL's best pitcher--if healthy--and a well above average 2-5.

i don't think the brewers are much more than an 83- or 84-win team, but in the 2007 NL Central, that's good enough.

estimated true odds: 4-1, 15-1

other bets
Pirates to win division 50-1
Braves to win division 8-1
Phillies to win division 4-1
Padres to win NL 14-1

these lines appear to have all bitten the dust, but they were solid when available.

really, the NL is so weak this year that the most important thing is to fade the favorites and hope you get lucky.

[Card08]

Hey Crock,

Thanks for the credit on the prop finds. I've got one more that could be of value.

I like Bob Melvin for NL manager of the year at 15-1. If the Dbacks show a marked improvement over last year's bad team (which they are likely to do even if they don't make the playoffs), Melvin has to be better than a randomly selected 1/16 shot. Thoughts?

Card

[crockpot]

BP's 2007 postseason odds report is out.

though it confirms good bets on most of my picks, that's not the point. there are a couple of important things to take away from the report, both dealing with randomness.

first, the postseason chances for some of the teams might surprise you, but BP (correctly) adds in a random variable to account for the naturally imperfect ability to project a team's true level of talent during the season.

if you look at the RLYW projections, you notice that despite using a fine simulation software in diamond mind, for most teams they come up with intervals of 12 to 14 wins between (-1 SD) to (+1 SD), so a 6 to 7 win standard deviation. this compares favorably to the standard deviation of 6.3 wins you get with absolutely perfect information. (i highly recommend that anyone who bets futures reads this article, which is sort of like a "fooled by randomness" for projecting team standings.)

second, you may also find it shocking that although no individual NL team projection is over 88 wins, the three division champs average 99 wins apiece, and the wild card averages 95. again, this should not be too surprising, though i do think these numbers look too high by a game or two. remember that these projections are inexact, so there's a reasonable chance one or two teams actually start the year with 90-win talent. add in the natural variance in baseball, and you're going to see a lot of dispersion from "expected" results.

imagine sending 16 breakeven poker players to play 162 hands apiece, or 10000 for that matter. do you expect their results to stay close to even, ignoring rake? i would suggest you're more likely to see a few who run well and a few who run poorly, just like in baseball.

not to trivialize the 2006 seasons of the tigers and cubs, but they fit this model well. you can look all day without finding a single viable source who had the tigers down for over 90 wins or the cubs for fewer than 70.

at any rate, projecting the standings with a SD of 6.3 games is impossible, and we should expect a true SD of around 9 games to account for injuries, playing time adjustments, trades, midseason callups, etc. IN ADDITION to the inherent coin-flipping variance.