Though I am a very casual bettor at best, as in two lottery tickets in a big year, I do keep an eye on what the oddsmakers are reflecting about the upcoming baseball season. It is also worthwhile to see change over time registered by those willing to invest their cash as it represents another measure of reaction to baseball events occurring around us.
Betting site thespread.com posts the 2011 World Series odds of all 30 teams. What makes their listing most interesting is they compare the current odds to what the opening odds were. While the site doesn’t indicate the date on which bets were first taken, it may have been shortly after the conclusion of the 2010 Series.
At opening, the St. Louis Cardinals were at 14/1, tied with the Tampa Bay Rays for fifth. Ahead of them were the usual suspects: the New York Yankees (4/1), Philadelphia Phillies (6/1), Boston Red Sox (10/1) and the World Series champion San Francisco Giants (10/1).
Since then, the Cardinals apparently were not as popular as expected among bettors as one is now able to secure 20/1 odds on them winning the 2011 Series. St. Louis is tied for sixth with the Rays and Minnesota Twins.
Top teams whose odds have trended in the other direction include the Phils (from 6/1 to a current-MLB best 13/4) and Red Sox (from 10/1 to 4/1).
What might have driven this change in the oddsmakers’ line on the 2011 Cardinals?
First of all, perhaps the initial placement of 14/1 was just too aggressive and didn’t attract enough play.
Another possibility is that their opponents were viewed to have improved more than they. The additions of Cliff Lee by the Phillies and Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford in Boston might help explain the shift in odds for those two front-running clubs.
Closer to home, the Milwaukee Brewers shot up from 65/1 to 25/1. The acquisitions of Zack Greinke and Shawn Marcum had to be a major driver. While the Cincinnati Reds stood relatively pat over the winter, their odds have eroded slightly from 20/1 to 25/1.
One other logical factor would be a view that the Cardinals themselves are considered less competitive today than earlier in the off-season. At first blush that would seem odd as their recent personnel changes are generally considered to be no worse than neutral and the club begins camp with an almost entirely healthy roster.
So what else might be behind it? Let’s see, what is the biggest story surrounding the 2011 Cardinals?
Might Albert Pujols’ contract situation and the resulting concerns about ongoing in-season distractions and their potential impact on the club’s on-field results be influencing the bettors?
Only those willing to lay down their money know for sure.
Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.
The Cubs added Garza and the Brewers Greinke, very good pitchers. This diminishes the chances of the Reds and Cards. Makes sense, without factoring Albert.
Glad the Pujols saga is out of the way. Lets play ball.
Will Allen Craig surprise at 3B? Will Tyler Green play OF? Can Kyle Lohse bounce back from injury? Can Lance Berkman handle RF? Is Nick Punto scrappy or what?
Apparently that explanation isn’t totally solid since despite Garza, the Cubs odds went from 30/1 to 35/1.
Well, scratch that ‘injury free’ business. Punto’s got a sore groin that will limit him without sidelining him. Bad news when the guy who’s backing up one of our biggest injury concerns is himself not healthy… Hope it is minor and short-term.
The big gainers as far as odds are the Red Sox, Phillies and Brewers. That corresponds to the teams that are widely thought to have improved themselves the most this winter.
‘No worse than neutral’ is probably a rosey description of the Cards off-season to most people nationally. The reason being that a substantial part of the Berkman and Theriot moves was to address the clubhouse concern, which doesn’t factor in to crunchable numbers.
It’s safe to say that niether Berkman as your regular right fielder nor Theriot as your regular shortstop are seen as smart money moves. (Counting on Freese backed up by Punto may fall into that catagory as well)
Going to disagree with you on the off-season assessment, bb. The only free agent the Cards lost that signed a major league deal was Penny. They gave up Ryan and Hawksworth in trade. They added Berkman, considered a better player than any of those that left. Theriot, Tallet and Laird are parts.
Jayson Stark from ESPN gave the Cards’ off-season a “C” grade, same as the Reds. That is about as neutral as a score could be.
The ‘C’ grade means the Cards had a pretty bad winter comparatively. Looking just at the NL, nine teams got a higher grade while only four got a lower one.
Stark’s primary reason for the “C” grade was the uncertainty over Pujols – the same reason I postulated the slippage in their odds.
I don’t know, Brian. My first thought is that it doesn’t matter whether a guy left or arrived by one means or another, its just subtraction and addition. The Cards didn’t lose much. But the gain side is the problem.
You say Berkman is considered a better player than those that left. But the better question is whether Berkman is a better player as a right fielder, since niether 1B nor DH is possible. I find little enthusiasm for that proposition.
You are exactly right about Theriot being a ‘part’ as are Laird and Tallet. The problem being the part about him being the starting shortstop.
Brian, do you know what the odds were on the Giants last year?
I don’t know. All I have from last year is that the Dodgers were the West Favorite and 7/1 or 8/1 to be NL Champs and the Giants’ over/under on wins was 82 1/2. Some people must have made a lot of money on them.
I’m positive……………..that they aren’t using a “pie graph” to gage these equations……….surly they are conscious of player issues as correlating factors……… but balancing the action on any given team is the point………….its not a teeter/toter graph as in head to head……… but rather like balancing a tire……..most likely opposed to least likely……… it is all based on betting volume…. thats what creates the imbalance….not talent…………… the opening line is quickly adjust to cover the action.
Right. For example, though it may seem logical, just because MIL improved its team doesn’t mean that StL’s odds would shift. It all depends on the behavior of the bettors.
It seems like there are two factors combining here. One is some miscalculation in setting the open, requiring adjustment to come into line with betting action. Example is the Padres, who got a ‘C’ from stark, same as the Cards, but whose odds went from 20/1 open to 50/1. Some is change in betting action in response to post-open moves over the winter. Examples are the Brewers and Red Sox.
Agreed. As I mentioned in the initial post, some or all of the movement could be explained by the initial line having been set non-optimally.
In the specific case of San Diego, they traded away their far and away best hitter in Adrian Gonzalez for mostly prospects so there is no wonder their 2011 World Series odds shot up through the roof. Maybe their 2013 chances improved; I don’t know…
The professionals odds makers create the line……..to stimulate activity. They balance the risk, against the entire pool, always keeping the house percentage……….. they speculate against the pool when they see vulnerability……….
If I walk in on day one…….and put down 10million dollars on the Royals to win the series…at 100 to 1…………….. that is going to effect the pool the whole way…….they aren’t going to take the odds at that point down to 2/1 till they cover the possible billion dollar payout……… but they will dramatically start adjusting the line on KC until they understand the parameters of that wager. Those adjustments won’t effect everyone else’s numbers……….. what they will do is try to figure how much of that 10,000,000 they want for them selves…..likely all……but they also aren’t looking to encourage a bunch of 1000$ bets at 100/1 that 10 million is going to make it 40/1 in a hurry………. they will manage the pool and isolate the bad bet for themselves….taking as much risk as they can handle….
This Cardinal team is a bet that Tony can mold the whole into a value greater than the sum of it’s individual parts. I don’t think it is a good bet but at this point all us fans can do is hope they can pull it off.
I agrre 100% CC.
I think it will be a miracle if Berkman and Freese last the year, but miracles can happen. If I’m wrong about it, it will be awesome. But, like you, I don’t think its a good bet.
This is the time of year for optimism, right?
My way to be optimistic about Freese is to hope Craig, Greene, or Matt Carpenter can contribute, after Freese goes down. Any contributions from Freese have to be viewed as gravy.
Berkman is not a defender like Ludwick, but he has been around the block. He may figure out a way to stay in the lineup.
A few springs back, TLR did not even want to look at Craig at 3B and sent him to 1B. Now he knows Freese is vulnerable, so is willing to see if Craig could fill-in at 3B for a season. TLR has good flexibility.
Either ‘thespread.com’ doesn’t update very much or we are all worried about nothing. The Cards are still 20/1, same as before the Wainy news.
Its gonna be hard to replace 20 wins no matter how it shakes out.
The Cards have continued to slide, now at 30/1 to win the WS. The Brewers have continued to attract money, now at 15/1 the favorite to win the division, and the Reds, now 25/1 have also moved ahead of the Cards. Most alarming of all, we are tied with the Cubs at 30/1.
The Phillies are 2/1. Yanks 7/1, Bosox 4/1.
I’m not a gambler and know little about it, but 2/1 to win the WS before the season has even started seems absurd.