2013 MLB over/under win total projections

[Beyond the Bets]

These are rough. Extremely rough. But win totals should be out in the next few days, and figured if we put some numbers out there, you all can help round them into form.

What would you bet if the numbers below were available? Try to add as much info as possible (why, how far off it looks, etc.)

* * *

2013 MLB win total projections

Washington Nationals 94
Los Angeles Angels 93.5
Detroit Tigers 92
Tampa Bay Rays 91
San Francisco Giants 91
Cincinnati Reds 91
New York Yankees 90
Texas Rangers 89
St. Louis Cardinals 89
Los Angeles Dodgers 88.5
Atlanta Braves 88
Toronto Blue Jays 87.5
Oakland Athletics 86.5
Chicago White Sox 85.5
Philadelphia Phillies 85
Arizona Diamondbacks 84.5
Baltimore Orioles 83
Boston Red Sox 83
Kansas City Royals 82.5
Pittsburgh Pirates 79
Seattle Mariners 78
Milwaukee Brewers 78
New York Mets 75.5
Cleveland Indians 74
Chicago Cubs 73
San Diego Padres 73
Colorado Rockies 72
Minnesota Twins 71
Miami Marlins 68.5
Houston Astros 59.5

[Sportsrmylife]

Brewers under 81.5 for the max. This is a 75 win team this year.

[Beyond the Bets]

Going to adjust already. New line is 78. Feel free to step back in line if necessary.

[JSpauny]

I might be willing to bet a significant amount on Boston over 83.

I'll share my numbers here since BTB asked for more participation.

These are all model based. 0 bias. Based on projected 25 man rosters. Model is a little rough at predicting high win totals (max is usually only 90-92) and low win totals (min is usually 79-75) but it did pretty well last year.

Wash 92
Cin 90
Oak 89
Atl 89
Det 89
Bos 89
Phi 88
TB 88
SF 88
LAA 88
NYY 88
Stl 88
LAD 88
Ari 88
CWS 87
NYM 86
Tex 86
Tor 86
Mil 85
Col 85
Pitt 84
SD 84
KC 84
Sea 83
Cle 83
CHC 82
Bal 82
Mia 81
Minn 80
Hou 79

Like I said, a little rough on the high and lows so I look for more than a few wins of value but thought I'd throw it out there.

[Huskers20]

Jspauny, not to give you too hard a time and I know you said you skewed hi....but 27 teams are >.500....

and side question to BTB or anyone, when they first post totals do they have it totaled out to equal wins and losses 4860 wins 4860 losses, or do they skew high from the start putting some inherent value in the unders from the start.

[Beyond the Bets]

(02-13-2013 11:47 AM)Huskers20 Wrote:  and side question to BTB or anyone, when they first post totals do they have it totaled out to equal wins and losses 4860 wins 4860 losses, or do they skew high from the start putting some inherent value in the unders from the start.

I don't. Don't think bookmakers do, either.

[JSpauny]

(02-13-2013 11:47 AM)Huskers20 Wrote:  Jspauny, not to give you too hard a time and I know you said you skewed hi....but 27 teams are >.500....

and side question to BTB or anyone, when they first post totals do they have it totaled out to equal wins and losses 4860 wins 4860 losses, or do they skew high from the start putting some inherent value in the unders from the start.

I did a lot of rounding there. It comes out to equal exactly 4860 games (2430 wins and 2430 loses) if I take out the rounding. Part of the issue is this doesn't factor in schedule, injury or any other aspect that could (and does) negatively affect the win total. Plus there is 0 perception boost/subtraction. Based off pure raw numbers.

But yes, it is flawed still. Haha.

[Rickcz1]

Detroit will be at 92-94. Everyone would jump over on 90 .

They had a bad season last year and still won 88. Now add Victor Martinez, tori hunter, and a full season of A. Sanchez. In the worst division in baseball!!! That screams mid 90s.

[Beyond the Bets]

BUMP IT TO 92.5!

[Skating Tripods]

The Indians at 70 is entirely too low. I don't think they were 68-94 bad last season, things really snowballed and the locker room revolted against Manny Acta. They weren't good, but their month of August (5-24) was historically bad.

To keep from sounding like a homer, I think 77.5 seems like a better number. I think their rotation could keep them under that but their offense will definitely be above league average.

How can the Royals be at 82.5 and the Indians at 70? They're extremely similar, both offensively and with their pitching. What did the Royals do to improve 12.5 games in the standings? James Shields is not a 12-win player.

Houston doesn't win 60 games in the AL. Not with the overall strength of the AL West. Even the Mariners, who weren't very good last year, spent much of the season leading the AL in runs scored on the road. I understand it's hard to project a team to that much over 100 losses, but 55 wins seems like a stretch. I have absolutely no idea where JS is getting 79 wins from. That's a near impossibility.

I think Arizona's number is a little bit high. The NL West is one of the better divisions in baseball and the Dodgers will be an improved ballclub. Arizona sort of replaced Justin Upton with Martin Prado and brought in Brandon McCarthy, but Cliff Pennington is one of the worst everyday shortstops in baseball. Their position depth player is atrocious and they're going to rely a ton on rookie Adam Eaton. Cody Ross is a platoon player who will play every day. I don't hate their team, I like their rotation, but the strength of schedule will catch up with them a little bit.

The Minnesota number is high. Denard Span and Ben Revere were two of their best players and they're gone. Their rotation is pretty bad outside of Diamond, who looks like a prime candidate for regression with his very low K/9 and a downgrade in overall defense on the team without Span and Revere. I don't see how they're 10 games better than last season's 66-96 team.

I'd say the Reds number looks a couple games too low. They're clearly better offensively and Chapman should improve the starting rotation. Whatever regression the pitching staff might see from last year's team should be negated by Choo and having Votto healthy all year. Remember, that's a 97-win team that was without its best offensive player for 50 games last year.

I'd bump the Braves up a couple wins as well. That division should be a two-horse race. With 30 starts from Medlen and both Uptons, that's should account for probably 4-5 more wins, even with Chipper's retirement. One of the game's top bullpens and better overall depth will help the Braves.

[Beyond the Bets]

For the teams you mentioned, give me the numbers you'd make them at. The Astros number can be explained simply by saying there has never been, to my knowledge, a win total in the 50s.

Also: I'm a complete baseball idiot right now, so the feedback is great.

[DOP]

I think White Sox is too high. The other teams in the division should only get better and that team did everything right last year to hit 85. I'd think this will be post around 83.5. Max 85.

what do you guys think?

[DOP]

also i think Tampa Bay needs to be below Toronto. No way Toronto wins total is lower than Tampa.

[VincentValour]

Baseball idiot here as well, but agree with DOP White sox under, Toronto higher, Tampa lower. Same with Dodgers and Giants perception, probably switched there as well.

[Beyond the Bets]

Should have clarified that these are MINE, although I try to keep them realistic to what they might actually be. It's an odd mix and poorly explained.

I'm really high on the Rays this year. Total opposite on the Blue Jays. Like some of the talent they added in the offseason, but let's keep in mind: Four of those same players were on LAST YEAR'S Marlins team that won 69 games.

Also, divisional play will be a wreck.

[Beyond the Bets]

White Sox now at 85.5.

Step back in line if necessary.

[DOP]

As much as I like Arizona, I dont think they'll post at 84. I think 81.5-82.5 range is better.

Although I personally really like an over for them is its at 81.5-82.5

[Skating Tripods]

(02-13-2013 01:48 PM)Beyond the Bets Wrote:  For the teams you mentioned, give me the numbers you'd make them at. The Astros number can be explained simply by saying there has never been, to my knowledge, a win total in the 50s.

Also: I'm a complete baseball idiot right now, so the feedback is great.

Re: the Astros: This should be the first year.

For numbers...

Indians: 76.5
Royals: 75.5
Houston: 57
Arizona: 81.5
Minnesota: 68.5
Reds: 92.5
Braves: 90.5

Not drastic changes, necessarily. More insurance against the market. I think Reds over, Indians over, Houston under, Minnesota under are all plays, with your numbers, that would be hit pretty quickly.

[DOP]

I think we should write down to Cubs to 69. This is a 61-win team last year (and they didnt have bad luck either in being that bad) and they'll lose 15 games versus Houston... they went 8-7 vs. Houston last year. 53-94 against everyone else.

[keb46]

Mets will be one of 5 worst teams in Baseball.

The Mets are punting on 3rd down this season and there really is no way around it. They finished with 74 wins last season and that was after a surprising start, they went 31-51 From July 1 on. They say goodbye to RA Dickey and the big offseason signing was Shaun Marcum.

Duda, Nieuwenhuis, Buck, and Tejada all shouldn't be starting on a major league team but they are, and throw in a 3rd outfielder yet to be named and you have 5/8 spots in your order who are very sketchy. Then you have Daniel Murphy and Ike Davis who are worthy of being starters but hardly anything worth smiling about...and David Wright.

I think the rotation has a chance to be solid. I like Niese, Marcum was a good pickup, and Harvey has a chance to be very good. Wheeler is one of the best prospects in baseball but probably won't start the year in Queens. Santana is toast. Dillon Gee is actually a decent 5th starter. The bullpen was a disaster last year and the addition on Brandon Lyon only makes it slightly better.

Bottom line is I don't know how they are going to score enough runs to win games. This team only won 74 games a year ago after such a good start and did not get better after the loss of a Cy Young pitcher.

The one thing going for the Mets this season will be how their young players develop- Matt Harvey, Zach Wheeler, and Travis D'Arnaud.