Gut Response: Are the Royals Better than the Indians?
by Freneau on Mar 5, 2012 6:00 AM EST
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
Print
Royals fans feel good. 90% of respondents to our very unscientific poll believe the Royals are better than the Twins and 86% believe the Royals are better than the White Sox. And we always hear that people are too negative here at Royals Review!
Now, we turn our attention to the Indians. The Tribe shocked baseball in 2011 by spending 85 days in first, holding onto an early season lead all the way until July 20th. On May 23, their high point, the Indians were 30-15 and had a seven game lead in the division. It didn't last, but like the Royals, the Indians are team thought to be on the upswing.
Indians in a Box: 2011 record: 80-82. Additions: Jeremy Accardo, Russ Canzler, Casey Kotchman, Andy LaRouche, Fred Lewis, Derek Lowe, Felix Pie, Kevin Slowey, Robinson Tejeda, Dan Wheller. Losses: Jim Thome, Chad Durbin, Kosuke Fukudome, "Fausto Carmona" in multiple senses, any idea that Ubaldo Jimenez is elite
Basically, the Indians added Kotchman, Lowe, and then had a lot of low-level, low-impact roster churn. Grady Sizemore was brought back, then got hurt anyway.
150 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Too bad there isn't a 'push' option.
I have a feeling that the Royals and the Indians will end up with very similar records this year. (Also, Will, you should change the first ‘here’ to ‘hear’).
not sure why exactly
but I feel better about beating the Indians than the White Sox.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
the Indians are a mess
They’ve got some talent in the rotation, and they’ve got some hitters in their lineup, but they are so unquantifiable based on previous production, inury history, etc. There’s a lot of volatility to their team.
I think the Royals are better, but much like the White Sox, I don’t think it is by much.
I have a feeling that part of me is giving us too much credit for our future outlook than I am more analyzing the talent that will be on the field in 2012.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
Yeah, I see the Royals as the second-best team in the division
with about 78 wins, about the same as the Indians, and better than the Sox and the Twins. I may be overoptimistic, but I like the Royals’ lack of aging overpaid hacks.
"She's the Kansas City Bomber, let her roll, let her roll, let her fly through the fury of the race
The cry of the crowd is the keeper of her soul, you can see by the rage on her face."
--Phil Ochs
Pretty sure 78 is not overly optimistic.
Optimistic would be, like, 84. The thing is, the sky’s the limit with this group, and it’s difficult to not dream about how good they might be in spring training.
it’s difficult to not dream about how good they might be in spring training.
I think they could be great in Spring Training. Now in the regular season….
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 9:39 AM EST up reply actions
now, now, no doom and gloom this early in Spring Training
there will be plenty of time for that!
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
I voted 'no' largely because I think they will have roughly the same record, but the poll will likely not reflect this closeness.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, and pontificating on pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick.
Twit. Old Man Duggan
agreed
Until something changes about the R’s pitching situation, I put Cleveland on top by a couple wins.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
A reason to vote 'yes'
Is minor league talent. If a couple of the Royals relievers fail/blow out their elbows, capable pitchers are awaiting their turn in AAA. This year will likely see the debut of one of the Royals’ top starting pitching prospects which would ostensibly improve the team. The Royals also have decent players in the minors (Lough, Robinson) in the case of injury.
Indians seem to have a pretty high chance of major injuries
Grady Sizemore, Travis Hafner, Carlos Santana, Ubaldo Jimenez – I can see any or all of them missing a lot of time. And Chris Perez is already out for the start of the year.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
i think both teams end up with somewhere between 78-82 wins.
i the long term (next3-4 years) i would say the Royals will be better than the tribe.
On the field, yes
In terms of racially insensitive team logos, no, they outdo us there.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 5, 2012 9:12 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Wow, a landslide win for the Royals in this vote?
There’s a disconnect with reality here.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
You don't think they're better?
Explain why using 25 words and without using the vowel “E”
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Pitching, hitting, catching, and throwing.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs
These numbers don't mean much though.
People who voted ‘yes’ have opinions ranging from the Royals being barely better than the Indians (likely) to the Royals being WAY better than the Indians (unlikely).
I think that the Royals are better than the Twins, White Sox, and Indians, but to widely varying amounts. But none of that reasoning shows up when I vote ‘yes’.
But, if the numbers mean anything, I don’t think there’s any good reason to believe that the Royals should win more games than the Indians.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
If anything they're pretty even
I think its pretty reasonable for anyone to conclude either team is better than the others. Certainly not disconnected from reality. Disconnected from reality is saying the Royals should win it all.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Hater
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Mar 5, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I wonder how the “Gut response” poll for the Tigers will work out.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Huh?
You’ve seen the stats and projections. You know them and understand them. And yet you’re going to vote that the Royals are better?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
I did a quick check at Fangraphs
Last year our lineup was significantly better than theirs, 25.6 WAR to 14.6. Their starting rotation was slightly better, 12.2 WAR to 10.1 for the Royals. The bullpen was a push, Indians 3.3 to Royals 3.1.
Their best players are Asdrubal Cabrera at 3.6 WAR and Carlos Santana at 3.5. We have several guys who are better players. They do have an ace pitcher, Justin Masterson at 4.9, which we don’t.
If most of our young guys improve, we should be a few games ahead of them.
"She's the Kansas City Bomber, let her roll, let her roll, let her fly through the fury of the race
The cry of the crowd is the keeper of her soul, you can see by the rage on her face."
--Phil Ochs
I'll believe Justin Masterson is an ace when he repeats it.
Until then, I’m leery.
Still think the Indians are slightly better this season, though.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, and pontificating on pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick.
Twit. Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Mar 5, 2012 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
The Royals...
… had a better run differential than the Indians did last year, and I think the Royals made better updates to their roster during the offseason. Specifically, why do you think the Indians will win more games than the Royals this year?
Regression, for one thing
The OF is set to look good, but not otherworldly like in 2011.
Chen is a mystery, but the numbers say he’s likely to be much worse.
CLE’s pitching is deep, with a number of guys with xFIP’s below their 2011 ERAs. That’s a bit true for the Royals, too, but the list includes SOS and Adcock, not exactly confidence inspiring.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
Mostly it’s Cleveland’s better pitching with a pretty good lineup and good defense.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
Their lineup's not pretty good
and it is pretty injury-prone. Ours is younger and has more upside this season. Their pitching is better than ours only because they have an ace and we don’t. Jeff Francis would have been the second-best pitcher on the Indians last year according to fWAR.
"She's the Kansas City Bomber, let her roll, let her roll, let her fly through the fury of the race
The cry of the crowd is the keeper of her soul, you can see by the rage on her face."
--Phil Ochs
FWIW, Cleveland has 8 players projected with above average OPS. The Royals have 5. I’m not going to pretend that this single stat proves their lineup is pretty good, but it is something to consider.
Their pitching is better than ours only because they have an ace and we don’t.
Actually, the Indians have two pitchers (Jimenez and Masterson) who project to be better than any Royals starter by a significant margin (measured by ERA or FIP). And then they have two pitchers (Lowe and Tomlin) who project to be as good as Chen or Hochevar. So their rotation is better by a fair margin.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
I can see it with Masterson too
Guys that can succeed as starters with just two pitchers are few and far between. Tomlin doesn’t strike many out and Lowe could be washed up for all we know. Cleveland has a better rotation, but you don’t have to squint very hard to see how they could be worse.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Youth...
…can explain those OPS numbers, as far as KC is concerned. We have ascending talents on the plus side of the age curve.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
FWIW, projections include an aging curve. Certainly some young players could blossom and perform much better. It is also quite possible that some young players could fail dismally and perform much worse.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
I agree CLE's injury-prone roster muddies the water
Especially compared to what should be a healthy young KC squad.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
but we're better at running, so we got that going for us
which is nice
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
how large would you say the Royals Review "community" is?
These polls bring in a lot of voters and have some bizarre results and trends- the trends most notably in instances when another team’s fans get word late in the voting and stuff the ballot.
FWIW, this got linked on Big League Stew this morning.
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Mar 5, 2012 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
FWIW
Vegas has the Royals as the second most likely team to win the division, at 11-2. DISCONNECT FROM REALITY!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Damn.
I was hoping I’d get something wild like 30-1 when I go out there.
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Mar 5, 2012 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
that would probably be closer to the number for playing in the World Series?
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
That's exactly the number to win the World Series
30-1
To win the pennant – 15-1. That doesn’t seem like terribly high odds to be honest. Its the seventh best odds in the league (I’m guessing the thinking is we have an easier road to the playoffs than say the Jays?)
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Something to note
It’s possible for the Royals to be more likely to win the division than the Indians even if the Indians are expected to win more games. For example, the Royals might be expected to win 78 with the Indians expected to win 81, but the Royals might be less predictable such that they are more likely to win 90+ games than are the Indians. So even tho the median projection favors the Indians, the Royals might be more likely to win enough games to actually win the division.
Just a hypothetical—I don’t know what the betting odds are based on.
Quite possible
Vegas does like our O/U on wins slightly better than Cleveland.
http://vegaswatch.net/2012/02/2012-mlb-wins-overunders.html
Detroit O/U 94
KC O/U 78.5
CHW O/U 77.5
CLE O/U 75.5
MIN O/U 74
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Vegas odds are about putting up a number to maximize bets. Do you really think their O/U numbers provide a better projection than the numbers that come out of projection systems like ZiPS and PECOTA?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
Do you really think that I would actually think that?
I get no regard. No regard at all.
No esteem either.
Especially when I have already listed why I voted the way I did.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
I was just trying to follow the logic of your sarcasm.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
it'd be interesting to see....
and also to see projected finishes based on division odds….i bet it’d be closer than you think
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 5, 2012 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
+1
I’d imagine that if ZiPS consistently beat the Vegas oddmakers, Dan Szymborski would be a rich man
They should add gambling lines to the projection "contest"
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
If Dan consistently made bets based on his projections
So long as he accurately estimated playing time.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
Or if his projections were a super-valuable betting tool
You’d think he’d want to charge for them
People serious enough about betting to pay for statistical projections aren’t wasting their money on a bet as speculative as season win total O/U.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Wouldn’t they put their money wherever they thought there was a good return? If ZiPS thinks Cleveland should win 7 games more than the O/U line and there’s good reason to trust that ZiPS can out-predict oddsmakers, I’d think that smart people would start putting some serious money on the over.
Because the range of what a team might do is very large. For instance, while I think the Royals are about a 76.5 win team, they have a reasonable shot at anywhere from 70 to 83 wins. Similarly for the Indians, the range would be almost as large. So I don’t think these bets are the kind of smart wagers that professional gamblers are looking for. There are way too many variables, too much luck, too many unknowns. You don’t make your living betting on that many unknowns.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
It seems like taking chances is kind of the name of the game with placing bets, but I’m not going to pretend to know whether professional gamblers can find bets that are a better deal than an O/U line that’s 7 wins too high or too low. Such a line seems like it would be a steal of a deal, but I don’t run a betting business.
It seems like taking chances is kind of the name of the game with placing bets
But if you’re a serious gambler, not someone just gambling for fun here and there, then you take smart chances, not wildly speculative chances. And making a bet on something where there’s a wide range of possible outcomes based on how many different variables for many players over a 6-month period pan out doesn’t seem like one of those smart bets.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
It’s about playing probabilities. With an O/U line, there are two possible outcomes: over and under. If you do research and conclude that over is much more likely than under, you take the bet.
The question is how well you can predict the probability of the outcomes.
Maybe win totals are harder to predict than other betting propositions. But I wouldn’t call predicting win totals any more “speculative” than predicting which team will win on a given day or predicting how many runs a player will score, etc.
Maybe win totals are harder to predict than other betting propositions. But I wouldn’t call predicting win totals any more "speculative" than predicting which team will win on a given day or predicting how many runs a player will score, etc.
Really? The season win total has more variables, more opportunity for luck, more opportunity for injury, much more that can happen. In short, the error bars (for lack of a better term) are much larger for the prediction of a season win total than for the outcome of a single game. If that isn’t readily apparent to you, then we really don’t have any common ground on which to discuss this at all.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
he season win total has more variables, more opportunity for luck, more opportunity for injury, much more that can happen
But the sample size is so much greater that factors like injury, luck, and all the variable you mention tend to regress and even out. Not to say teams can’t defy predictions, but it happens far less because of the 162 games season.
The projection of one player is a much smaller sample size of data where performance can vary to a greater degree.
One game is such a small sample size that the outcome is just a bit easier to predict than a coin flip.
Unless I am misunderstanding you?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
But I’m not comparing a single futures bet to a single game bet. I think professional gamblers would bet on multiple single games rather than making futures bets, because over time those games are more predictable than the futures bet.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
The single game bets are only more predictable
Because you have more data at your disposal. You know what has happened that season. You know who is hurt. You don’t know that making a futures bet in March.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Exactly
For single games during the season, more is known and less is unknown. A futures bet is much more speculative because you’re dealing with so many more unknowns.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Somehow, I don’t see professional gamblers worrying about variance (risk) as much as they worry probability of winning a bet.
If they place enough bets, the variance will wash out. What matters will be whether they can get an information advantage over the betting market. Season win totals might be good for that since there are more moving parts to analyze.
Somehow, I don’t see professional gamblers worrying about variance (risk) as much as they worry probability of winning a bet.
If they place enough bets, the variance will wash out
There aren’t that many season win total betting opportunities. And certainly few where the probability appears to be in the bettor’s favor.
And I think professional gamblers would take risk very seriously.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
What bettors should look for is a place where they think they have an information-advantage over whatever information the betting line is based upon.
Regarding whether there’s more variance in betting a group of teams win totals over a season or betting a a group of teams’ likelihood to win their games on a given day, I’ve found that it’s not good policy to argue with you about math. For whatever reason, there’s no chance that you’ll realize when you’re wrong.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, I thought we were supposed to argue our points and not get personal, right? Isn’t that one of your big pet peeves? And let’s not pretend that you are eager to embrace your own wrongness.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying I’m right because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m saying that I try to abstain from arguing with you about math because, in my opinion, you often don’t consider or don’t understand my points.
So you’re not getting personal; you’re just calling me stupid. I get it.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not calling you stupid. It’s just a bad medium for arguing math and technically complicated issues.
Check out the communication breakdown here:
http://www.royalsreview.com/2012/2/28/2829816/salvador-perez-contract-breakdown#93303354
I wasn’t able to clearly explain my point in a comment thread, so nobody understood what I said.
It’s got to be hard to operate at a level higher than everyone else. I’m sure a few people understand your points. I wish I was one of them. Maybe someday.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
What do you want from me?
I think you’re good but not great with statistics. I’d also put myself in that category.
I’d say KSinDC and ZeppelinDZ (tho he hasn’t been commenting lately) are better than both of us.
Of baseball statisticians in general, Mike Fast and Nate Silver have impressed me the most.
I am not better in statistics than you
I also think that if somebody takes offense at
I wasn’t able to clearly explain my point in a comment thread, so nobody understood what I said.you just walk away. There’s nothing you can do in that case.
Don’t you think that I maybe took offense at
in my opinion, you often don’t consider or don’t understand my points
He tried to walk it back, sans apology in the next comment.
If I had said the same kind of thing on this site (“I’d continue arguing with you, but you wouldn’t understand my point”) I would get roasted for being a condescending ass.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't defend his first comment
He said you didn’t understand him. You took offense. I thought that was fair.
Then he said that the reason you didn’t understand him was because he communicated poorly. You continued taking offense. I thought that was unfair.
I think you’re right that you’d get roasted if you said that. You seem to be getting roasted even for much milder comments. If you seem exasperated like kcdc1 did here, I’d likely jump in with a little third-party perspective.
But I don’t think I’ve ever seen an exasperated post from you. Your stomach for debate seems unlimited. And I enjoy that.
I am, but a man. If you prick me, do I not bleed? If you tickle me, do I not laugh? If you poison me, do I not die? And if you wrong me, shall I not revenge?
(rimshot)
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
more opportunity for luck over 162 games
than over one game? are you serious?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 5, 2012 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
Do you think professional gamblers are making futures bets (like O/U on win totals and preseason bets about who will win the WS) or are they betting on multiple individual games? And if they are betting on the games and not futures bets, why do you think that is? This is my point. I’m talking about smart bets and relative risk.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
i think they're betting on damn near everything...
you can find good odds on just about any type of bet…obviously, they’re betting on more single games
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 5, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Gamblers are not betting on multiple games
Unless I’m missing something. The choices are to bet on single games, futures, and sometimes a series (playoffs). I think there’s much more variance in single games. My opinion. Over a full season, it’s tough to make good money, but Vegas is going to be closer in their odds compared to outcomes.
No
I also don’t think the projection systems are all that accurate when used for team projections.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Do you believe in the wisdom of crowds?
The reason the Vegas odds are the way they are is because the odds are changed depending on how the money is flowing. They want an equal number of bettors on both sides of the bet, and they make their money off the 10% vigorish. I know you know this.
Right now about as many people pick the Royals to win 79 or more as they do to win 78 or less. If that perception among the bettors changes, then the odds will change. But right now the people who bet on baseball think KC will win approximately 78.5. It’s the collective judgment among people who actually have money riding on it.
I don’t gamble, personally, which is why I stay out of Vegas and the stock market.
"She's the Kansas City Bomber, let her roll, let her roll, let her fly through the fury of the race
The cry of the crowd is the keeper of her soul, you can see by the rage on her face."
--Phil Ochs
Exactly
And personally I think “crowd wisdom” is an oxymoron.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
Keep in mind that the people who place big bets are going to have done some research. I don’t know the betting market, but I’d guess that most of the bets are placed by Joe Schmo’s that bet with their guts, but that big bets constitute most of the money wagered, and those bets are coming from highly informed bettors.
I doubt that there is much in the way of “big bets” placed on these long odds futures wagers. If I am correct in assuming that the big bets come from more serious, perhaps professional, gamblers, then they aren’t going to be wasting their money on something so speculative. They’re looking for outcomes which are more predictable, not things like this which are much more speculative.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
If there really are high-expected-value bets available, why wouldn't bettors take them?
And larger sample sizes (full season results) should be less speculative than single-game results, right?
I remember reading somewhere that Vegas generally always
adjusts the lines in favor of whomever is playing the Red Sox, because so many tourists from the Northeast will stop by and just bet on the Red Sox no matter what.
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Mar 5, 2012 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
There are certain teams where the line is going to be skewed because of the fanbase
Notre Dame, the Steelers, the Cowboys, the Packers, etc.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I kind of like the under
on the Twins and 74 wins.
"She's the Kansas City Bomber, let her roll, let her roll, let her fly through the fury of the race
The cry of the crowd is the keeper of her soul, you can see by the rage on her face."
--Phil Ochs
Before claiming that there's free money to be made on certain Vegas lines
A google search for “expected value” or “+EV” would be useful.
The idea that Vegas lines (for anything outside of how long the national anthem at the Super Bowl will last) are the product of a bunch of idiots placing bets based on gut instincts is wrong. Whether or not you believe in the Wisdom of Crowds, the big money in Vegas sports books is coming from big-dollar gamblers using sophisticated techniques to identify positive expected value.
The Vegas line represents the best guess of people who get paid to analyze sports for a living. Claiming that it represents a “disconnect with reality” is, ironically, a statement that is itself disconnected from reality.
Not that I disagree with you, but I think this line needs adjustment
the best guess of people who get paid to analyze sports for a living
they get paid to analyze sports, the gambling public, and most importantly how to be right down the middle.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
When asked, those who put together betting lines always say that they aren’t making predictions; they are “putting up a number.” And they go on to explain that that number is about maximizing betting volume on both sides of the wager. Now this certainly isn’t divorced from predicting the reality of the outcome in question, but there’s certainly a lot more going into than that. Certainly the actual action that a line generates moves the line.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
Outside of a few Super Bowl bets, I don't think I've ever seen them say that
I think articles like this are much more representative where Vegas has a net position on almost every bet:
http://gamingtoday.com/articles/article/32929-Las_Vegas_sports_book_s_two_week_losing_streak_came_to_an_end
If you look at the regulatory filings of the big casinos operators
They state right in their statement of risks that they’re generally placing the line where they think the outcome will be, that they’re not trying to balance the bets on either side. They’ll move the line to stop the bets from getting too imbalanced (especially if there are big-dollar bets coming down on one side), but Vegas does make (and lose) money on its betting lines. The casinos just figure that they’re better than their bettors so they’ll make money over the long term.
Aren't these two statement at odds?
They’ll move the line to stop the bets from getting too imbalanced
The casinos just figure that they’re better than their bettors
My understanding is that they profit because of the vig (as in statement 1), not because they’re “right” more often than the general public (as in statement 2).
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think they're at odds
If my brother wanted to play me in Scrabble, I’m very confident that I’d beat him. If he wanted to bet, I’d give him 5-to-1 odds. But if he said he wanted to put $1000 on it, I’d take those odds down significantly. I’m still pretty sure I’d win, but I need to manage my tail risk.
So if Vegas has 60% of the money on the “wrong” side of the bet, they’re happy, but if they have 80% of the money on the wrong side, they’ll move the lines to try to get it more balanced.
I think the difference is that in the Scrabble example,
the players (you and your brother) aren’t making bets. NYRoyal and I am, but you have to pay out the winner and only get to keep the loser’s money plus the vig.
I don’t think that totally invalidates the example, but it’s a bit different situation.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 5:02 PM EST up reply actions
I'm saying that Vegas effectively makes a bet on each game
So, in the link above, they know that Oklahoma and Alabama and Ohio State fans will bet on their teams, and Vegas knows that and wants that. They set the points line just above the true value knowing that most of the money will come in over that and so the sportsbook has a net position on the underdog.
They think the underdog is a good proposition, but they don’t want it to be too big of a bet so if the action gets too imbalanced (so that the sportsbook net position on the underdog gets too big), they’ll move the line up a little to try to get more bets on the underdog.
Saying that they move the line to affect the balance of bets (which is true) does not mean that they try to get an equal number of bets on the same side (which is usually untrue).
Also, if they move the bet too far from the initial position to rebalance bet volume
They risk having the outcome fall between the new line and the old line in which case they lose to both the bettors on the old line and the bettors on the new line.
it'd be interesting to see what is historically more accurate....
the projection systems or vegas
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Mar 5, 2012 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Since the projection systems are publicly available
I’d be very surprised with any scenario under which they outperform Vegas over the long term.
you're right, a disconnect with reality is predictable
It’s called “optimism bias”.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
Does anyone else just not like asdrubal cabrera?
Or am I just used to a SS who can field, I feel like he got a lot more credit as a fielder than he deserved last year.
The numbers don't like his fielding
He was 12 runs below average for SS’s last year. His career UZR/150 at SS is -10.5. So he’s a poor fielding SS. But overall he’s a good player. That kind of hitting at SS is worth a lot.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
I think i took it personally
that his defense at short stop was the talk of the central while escy was doing his magic.
Any positive talk about Cabrera’s defense is pure horseshit. He’s a very good player, but a poor defender, much like Jeter.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2012 9:28 AM EST up reply actions
The indians are a scrappy little team
these bastards are sneaky good, and I’m pretty sure they’ve got good pitching. That being said hell no they aint better than the Royals, eat shit indians.
Shit + Shit = More Shit
by Kansas City Keith on Mar 5, 2012 1:22 PM EST reply actions
I have a big issue with people screaming
REGRESSION!
RR is not too bad about it, but in general I’ve seen people going nuts over it. Sure, some players are going to regress, but other players with progress. As long as Gordon/Francouer can only regress marginally (like let’s say Alex keeping up power numbers and drawing a few more walks) the offense should be on a similar level to last year. Yes, we lost Melky, and to expect Cain to do what Melky did is probably a bit unrealistic, sure, but it’s not out of the question that there will be a player who surprises us this year (my guess is Butler hits more HOMERZ than we’re expecting) which will close the gap a bit. On a related note, if this team experiences regression, SO DOES EVERY OTHER TEAM.
Basically, regression is not as big of an issue as you “regressioners” are suggesting. So stop it.
"what is age anyway? what's old? what's young?" - Frank White
by AlexGordonHRmagnet on Mar 5, 2012 1:48 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I'll repeat myself: "It's called 'optimism bias'."
As long as Gordon/Francouer can only regress marginally (like let’s say Alex keeping up power numbers and drawing a few more walks) the offense should be on a similar level to last year.
my guess is Butler hits more HOMERZ than we’re expecting
Of course we hope these things happen, but history tells us what we should realistically expect.
Yes, regression should happen to every player as their performance normalizes to their talent. But those players with recent performances more out of line with their talent (as far as we can perceive it) are going to regress more.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
There's also a bit of a "crush the optimism bias" that can manifest itself when corralling the expectations of over-zealous fans
It goes a little like this:
Fan: The Royals are going to be awesome this year!! Gordon broke out last year, and it’ll be Hosmer and Moose this year! Paulino is going to be a beast!
Stat-conscious fan: Here’s a reality check—it’s unlikely that both Hosmer and Moose substantially improve next year, and Gordon is likely to regress this year since his 2011 was a BABIP-fueled career year.
What the stat-conscious fan fails to mention is that while Hosmer and Moose might not both break out in 2012, it’s likely that the sum of their production will take a significant step forward. He also mentions that regression to the mean should bring Gordon’s numbers down without acknowledging that regression to the mean should also bring Paulino’s numbers up.
I know what you mean, but those are not good examples
1) In discussing the sophomore slump cliche, we looked at past data for WAR put up in players’ 1st, 2nd and 3rd years and saw that, for the two years of data looked at, there was about an equal percentage of players that improved versus players that declined. The improvements were slightly larger than the declines, so overall, there was class-wide improvement, but not so far as to call it a"significant" step forward.
2) Paulino put up his best numbers with the Royals so “regression” will not help him. If he plays up to his FIP, then yes, he’ll be much better.
by Loose Seal on Mar 5, 2012 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
(1) I believe your referencing the discussion here:
As I said in the thread, the methodology had some selection bias issues that skewed the results. Players in their low 20’s, on average, get significantly better year-to-year. Aging curves, like this one are well known, and they actually understate the phenomenon because they aren’t isolated to players that come up at a young age.
This study is relevant: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15295
Also, this quote from Bill James:
bq. Suppose that you have a 20-year-old player and a 21-year-old player of the same ability as hitters; let’s say that each hits about .265 with ten home runs. How much difference is there in the expected career home run totals for the two players?"
As best I can estimate, the 20-year-old player can be expected to hit about 61% more home runs in his career. That’s right—61%.
(2) I guess I could have been more specific. We expect Gordon’s BABIP to regress toward the MLB average BABIP of .300. This should deflate his overall numbers. We expect Paulino’s BABIP-against to regress toward the MLB average BABIP-against of .300. This should significantly improve his numbers.
No idea what your point is here? Are you saying that in “coralling the expectations of over-zealous fans,” that the stat-concscious fans sometimes use bad analysis? Certainly everyone is guilty of flawed or incomplete analysis at times. Are you saying that the stat-conscious fan’s flawed analysis is the product of bias? What is the bias then? Anti-Royals bias? Anti-positive bias? Could it actually just be an attempt at realistm, rather than a bias for or against anything?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
The bias is that the stat-conscious fan thinks the optimistic fan is too excited and wants to explain why the optimism is unjustified. So the stat-conscious fan puts together a statistical argument against the unjustified aspects of the optimism, but fails to mention the parts that actually are justified.
The stat-conscious fan doesn’t hate the team, but when he takes a opposition that opposes unwarranted optimism, he may tend to mention only the facts that support his case.
The stat-conscious fan doesn’t hate the team, but when he takes a opposition that opposes unwarranted optimism, he may tend to mention only the facts that support his case.
Isn’t the stat conscious fan in your hypothetical just pointing out where the first fan was wrong?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
He’s presenting an argument that the first fan was wrong.
And because he’s arguing a position, he winds up expressing a biased analysis.
So it’s biased to say that both Hosmer and Moustakas are unlikely to have big breakouts in 2012? Because the hypothetical stat-conscious person doesn’t go on to say that their total production is likely to improve? It’s biased to explain why the first fan is wrong about Gordon because he doesn’t go on to talk about Paulino as well? Unless you delve into all of the ins and outs of everything, you’re expressing biased analysis?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
Let's put it this way
If a cigarette company cites a study that finds that smoking cigarettes curbs appetite and helps people lose weight, would we think they were portraying a biased version of the issue?
They’re not obligated to mention all sides of the issue, so they mention the points that suit their needs. It’s a selective telling of the truth, but it’s true nonetheless.
But that's different from a direct response to a specific statement
If someone were to say, “cigarette smoking causes cancer, increases appetite and makes people gain weight,” it would be entirely appropriate for the cigarette company to respond by saying that it actually decreases appetite and helps people lose weight. They need not address the cancer allegation. You can disagree with part of a statement; you need not respond to everything in it.
If someone claims A, B and C to be true, would it be expressing bias to merely disagree with and discuss A and B?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
I doubt the company would have piped up with a correction had the person instead said, “Cigarette smoking causes cancer, but it’s great for athletes because it increases lung capacity.”
But yes, whether a correction shows bias depends on the situation.
In my example, I think Fan B is presenting a selective truth by mentioning the negative impact of BABIP regression in Gordon’s case without mentioning the positive impact BABIP regression will have in Paulino’s case.
But Fan B has no obligation to discuss every angle. I think people often want to take a position and argue for it, and they tend to bring up evidence that supports their argument. For this reason, there winds up being a biasing filter in which evidence is selected for presentation.
Just my opinion, but I think you are looking hard for bias in the argumentation of the stat-friendly realists (those who are at least working hard to strive for realism, rather than optimism or pessimism) and I believe you are inferring it beyond its actual existence.
I think (and I may be wrong here), that you are implying that an equivalency of bias exists between fan optimism and stat-conscious realists. It seems like you might be arguing that both sides are biased, so they are equally likely to be fair, objective, well-supported and….right. I don’t agree with this in the least.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 5:27 PM EST up reply actions
what if we replace "cigarette company" with NPR?
If NPR cites a study that finds that smoking cigarettes curbs appetite and helps people lose weight, would we think they were portraying a biased version of the issue?
It’s still a selective telling of the truth (by definition: you can’t present every single fact in every comment), but are they also considered biased?
(Just FWIW, I don’t think anyone here is a cigarette company or NPR, just like with regression, we’re all somewhere in-between.)
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
I was trying to be careful to solely juxtapose "expectations" versus "hope"
And I selected the only two items that were presented, which were unreasonable “expectations” (I agree with him that Cain replacing 100% of Melky’s 2011 performance is just a hope). Had he cited reasonable expectations for Royals improvement, would I have acknowledged their correctness? I don’t know, but don’t Minority Report me before I’ve even gotten the chance to be biased.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
I wasn't trying to get on your case
I was just making a general point that bias can work both ways.
No, I know, and I also know that the AOLF
(Anti-Optimism Liberation Force) can be a bit strict and maybe fall on the Captain Bringdown side too often. But the truth must prosper!
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Mar 5, 2012 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
The Indians are tearing this fanbase apart
Damn them!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Statistical determinism
Gut response poll results:
Twins 90%
White Sox 86%
Indians 77%
Therefore, the next poll will reveal that 63% say that the Royals are better than the Tigers.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 6:32 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think it will be 90% say the Tigers are better than the Royals
Which only reveals there is too much groupthink here and we all agree with each other too much.
Is that what you think?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Geek off!
My formula’s better: Result = 100% – 9% -(n!^2)%
90% = 100% – 9% – (1^2)%
86% = 100% – 9% – (1^2)% – (2^2)%
77% = 100% – 9% – (1^2)% – (2^2)% – (3^2)%
61% = 100% – 9% – (1^2)% – (2^2)% – (3^2)% – (4^2)%
Soon we’ll know which one of us was right. And if it turns out to be anything other than 63% or 61%, then I think we should both give up statistical analysis forever.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2012 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
The Royals are not better than the Indians
At least not right now. But the Royals clearly have more upside, so it’s not unlikely that they will finish ahead of Cleveland in 2012.
"Poker, poker, it's all skill. Start with the worst hand and go uphill" - Mike Matusow
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
Related FanShots on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
