MLB Projected Lines for 7/13

[tone10]

Diamondbacks (I. Kennedy) -130 @ Cubs (P. Maholm)

Tigers (D. Fister) @ Orioles (J. Hammel) -110

Indians (J. Masterson) @ Blue Jays (R. Romero) -115

Red Sox (F. Morales) @ Rays (J. Hellickson) -110

Cardinals (A. Wainwright) @ Reds (M. Latos) -120

Nationals (J. Zimmermann) @ Marlins (J. Johnson) -135

Mets (C. Young) @ Braves (T. Hudson) -170

White Sox (J. Quintana) @ Royals (B. Chen) -110

Athletics (A. Griffin) @ Twins (F. Liriano) -130

Pirates (J. McDonald) @ Brewers (Z. Greinke) -140

Phillies (C. Lee) -140 @ Rockies (C. Friedrich)

Padres (C. Richard) @ Dodgers (C. Kershaw) -190

Rangers (D. Holland) -145 @ Mariners (K. Millwood)

Astros (J. Lyles) @ Giants (M. Bumgarner) -210

The SDG/LAD line is contigent on the expected return of Kemp and Ethier. No line for LAA/NYY as the Angels have not designated a pitcher as of yet.

[Wiseguy]

(07-11-2012 01:41 PM)tone10 Wrote:  Diamondbacks (I. Kennedy) -130 @ Cubs (P. Maholm)

Tigers (D. Fister) @ Orioles (J. Hammel) -110

Indians (J. Masterson) @ Blue Jays (R. Romero) -115

Red Sox (F. Morales) @ Rays (J. Hellickson) -110

Cardinals (A. Wainwright) @ Reds (M. Latos) -120

Nationals (J. Zimmermann) @ Marlins (J. Johnson) -135

Mets (C. Young) @ Braves (T. Hudson) -170

White Sox (J. Quintana) @ Royals (B. Chen) -110

Athletics (A. Griffin) @ Twins (F. Liriano) -130

Pirates (J. McDonald) @ Brewers (Z. Greinke) -140

Phillies (C. Lee) -140 @ Rockies (C. Friedrich)

Padres (C. Richard) @ Dodgers (C. Kershaw) -190

Rangers (D. Holland) -145 @ Mariners (K. Millwood)

Astros (J. Lyles) @ Giants (M. Bumgarner) -210

The SDG/LAD line is contigent on the expected return of Kemp and Ethier. No line for LAA/NYY as the Angels have not designated a pitcher as of yet.

I see some things I like if you nailed these lines. Good stuff.

[tone10]

BetOnline openers in red.

Diamondbacks (I. Kennedy) -130 -120 @ Cubs (P. Maholm)

Tigers (D. Fister) @ Orioles (J. Hammel) -110 -125

Indians (J. Masterson) @ Blue Jays (R. Romero) -115 -135

Red Sox (F. Morales) @ Rays (J. Hellickson) -110 -115

Cardinals (A. Wainwright) @ Reds (M. Latos) -120 -135

Nationals (J. Zimmermann) @ Marlins (J. Johnson) -135 -135

Mets (C. Young) @ Braves (T. Hudson) -170 -150

White Sox (J. Quintana) -110 @ Royals (B. Chen) -110

Athletics (A. Griffin) @ Twins (F. Liriano) -130 -130

Pirates (J. McDonald) @ Brewers (Z. Greinke) -140 -150

Phillies (C. Lee) -140 -150 @ Rockies (C. Friedrich)

Padres (C. Richard) @ Dodgers (C. Kershaw) -190 -180

Rangers (D. Holland) -145 -145 @ Mariners (K. Millwood)

Astros (J. Lyles) @ Giants (M. Bumgarner) -210 -200

[SkyBlues42]

Have a reason why you think the Royals should have been favored? Just curious, since it opened with the Sox being favored. Thanks

[LineProjector]

I personally think the public will jump on Quintana. If I was going to bet CWS, I think I'd do it immediately. A better number will probably be offered later for KC bettors.

[tone10]

(07-12-2012 11:03 AM)SkyBlues42 Wrote:  Have a reason why you think the Royals should have been favored? Just curious, since it opened with the Sox being favored. Thanks

Well, I think people are overrating Quintana. This is a guy who's on a bit of a hot streak right now, but he is what he is... that being a guy who only got his shot in a spot-start, and a guy who the White Sox were able to freely sign as a minor league free agent last season because no one else wanted him.

Therefore, he's rightfully not too respected by the books or the sharps. Closing as a +120 home dog in his last start with a pretty good White Sox lineup backing him indicates as much. I compare Quintana's closing lines, and Bruce Chen's closing lines, and there is little, if any difference. I have given Quintana some credit (and given the White Sox a slight edge) by moving off the equal -120/+110 line down to -110. But to think Quintana should be laying road chalk here is probably a bit much.

I believe this creates a very nice value opportunity on the Royals tomorrow. I did not play the +100 BetOnline opener as it isn't that far off from my number... that, and BetCris seems to always overreact on their opening lines. I am anticipating getting a better number on KC once BetCris opens. All I need is +105 and I will fire.

[mount187]

Interesting note on the White Sox. Baseball Prospectus has an Adjusted Standings page (here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/), and by most metrics "should" be about two games better in the standings than what they were in the 1H. According to their adjusted metrics, the CWS "should" have the 3rd best record in baseball. I think that stat would surprise a lot of people. KC, on the other hand, was at most 0.5 wins worse than they "should" have been by those standards, and would still be 10 wins behind the Sox. While Quintana may not be great, according to the stats, the White Sox are legit, and KC "is who we thought they were". Good luck tomorrow.

[Weebay]

Mount:

What are you getting at? I don't think anyone is arguing who the better team is. I do believe chen's war is better than quintana and this is a situation where there might be value on kc. What would you line this game at and what number would you need to merrit a play on cws?

[mount187]

(07-12-2012 01:45 PM)Weebay Wrote:  Mount:

What are you getting at? I don't think anyone is arguing who the better team is. I do believe chen's war is better than quintana and this is a situation where there might be value on kc. What would you line this game at and what number would you need to merrit a play on cws?

Just looking at Chen's numbers, his xFIP is 4.50, and was 4.68 last season. His WAR is only 1.2 this season, and was only 1.7 last year. Quintana's xFIP is 3.72, with a WAR of 1.5. I'll give you that it's a small sample size on this season, but statistically speaking, I just don't see the value in backing Chen against a team that's somewhere between 10-12 games better than KC in half a season.

Outside of the stats, I feel like people want KC to be good, b/c they want to root for small markets, but the statistics say they haven't come into their own yet. That could change in the 2H, as their younger players mature, but up to this point it hasn't worked out. There will be good spots to play them, but I don't feel like this is it. If you don't buy into Quintana, that's fair, but fading a guy that's pitching well and playing for a good team, to back a bad team with a mediocre pitcher doesn't seem like the right play.

I'd back CWS at -110, but not much more than that. If you factor in their adjusted W%, you could play them up to -115 or so.

[tone10]

(07-12-2012 12:48 PM)mount187 Wrote:  Interesting note on the White Sox. Baseball Prospectus has an Adjusted Standings page (here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/), and by most metrics "should" be about two games better in the standings than what they were in the 1H. According to their adjusted metrics, the CWS "should" have the 3rd best record in baseball. I think that stat would surprise a lot of people. KC, on the other hand, was at most 0.5 wins worse than they "should" have been by those standards, and would still be 10 wins behind the Sox. While Quintana may not be great, according to the stats, the White Sox are legit, and KC "is who we thought they were". Good luck tomorrow.

Yes... but the reason the White Sox are outperforming their expectations is mainly because of two guys: Chris Sale and Jake Peavy, two bona-fide stud pitchers. And neither of them will have an impact on tomorrow's game. Those two guys are worth 3.5 and 2.9 wins, respectively. You swap them out and put them on the Royals and all of a sudden the White Sox are 40-45 and the Royals are 44-40.

The White Sox are the better team because of those two guys... and again, neither will impact the game tomorrow. That comes down to the respective offenses, lineups, and bullpens.

The White Sox are batting .253 and averaging 4.33 runs on the road. The Royals are batting .272 and averaging about 4 runs per game at home. There's very little difference in bullpens. In my opinion there isn't much difference in starting pitchers. Why should CWS be laying significant road chalk in this scenario?

This line is opening with CWS being favored because of flawed thinking... that the White Sox are a better team (which they are because of Peavy and Sale but who will have no bearing on tomorrow's outcome) and because of overreaction to Quintana and Chen's recent performances. This is a perfect storm for value on KC, but I want at least +105 on the Royals.

[mount187]

For what it's worth, our model accounts for home/road splits and splits vs LHP/RHP, and has the CWS offense producing at about a 9% better margin than the Royals in tomorrow's game.

Also, I respectfully disagree with your sentiments about the CWS "only" being Peavy and Sale. Of the other starters with more than 5 starts, their record is 17-17 (Floyd, Quintana, Danks, and Humber). That's not stellar, but is certainly better than the Royals record.

I just don't see anything about Chen's career that makes me feel he's worth backing at that low of a price. If he were +130, or so, I think you'd have a case. It would also be different if he had a few good years with good xFIP/WAR numbers, and he was just under performing up to this point, but I just don't see it.

We can agree to disagree, and you can have the last word if you'd like. I don't have any personal stake in the game, so I wish you luck tomorrow if you're on KC.

[tone10]

As I suspected the line went towards KC... they closed pretty much -105 at most shops, and actually closed as a favorite at one of the sharpest books out there (BetGrande).

Unfortunately a tough start for Royals backers but a lot of baseball left.

[LineProjector]

(07-13-2012 07:24 PM)tone10 Wrote:  As I suspected the line went towards KC... they closed pretty much -105 at most shops, and actually closed as a favorite at one of the sharpest books out there (BetGrande).

Unfortunately a tough start for Royals backers but a lot of baseball left.

A favorite? Yikes. Here's the line movement on BetOnline via lineprojector.com

[Weebay]

I think he was referring to sharp books.