Bet On Colorado

The Red Sox were only seven games better than the Rockies over the course of the regular season, a nearly-meaningless edge when you're talking about a seven-game playoff series. In the second half of the season, they were considerably worse. In the postseason, they've gone 7-3; the Rockies have gone 7-0. Admittedly, the National League offers markedly inferior competition, and I do think the Red Sox are a better team than the Colorado. But 2-1 favorites? Not hardly.

(All betting lines provided for informational purposes only.)

Comments

Run differentials, generally considered a better metric of a team's performance, tell a somewhat different story. Colorado's run differential of +102 is best in the NL, but way behind Boston's +210. In the playoffs, Colorado beat Philly (+71) in a best of 5 series, then beat the woeful Diamondbacks (-20) in a 7-gamer. Boston meanwhile beat Anaheim (+91) and Cleveland (+107).

I do like the Rockies, particularly because in the Chicago area it's easy to make Rockies-Iraqis puns, but the betting line seems pretty reasonable.

Posted by Ben | October 23, 2007 2:48 PM

I'd be interested (though not interested enough to crunch the numbers myself) to know what constitutes an honest-to-God 2-1 advantage in a best-of-seven baseball series.

In '06 St. Louis won 12 fewer regular season games than the Tigers and won the Series 4-1; in 2004 the Red Sox won 8 fewer games than the Cardinals and won 4-0; the Yankees were 10 games better than the Marlins in '03 and lost; that great Seattle team lost to the Yankees in '01; etc.

I wonder if the run differentials show that some of these outcomes, and similar outcomes, weren't actually upsets. That wouldn't surprise me, but I've always thought that the outcome of any given post-season series was more or less a toss-up as long as the teams were plausibly well-matched.

I don't bet on baseball but if I did I'd take those odds and bet the Rockies, just because I have a hard time believing--barring a truly epic mismatch on the level of '98 Padres/Yankees--that any team is twice as likely as its opponent to win a seven-game playoff.

That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that professional bookmakers have a better handle on this than I do.

Posted by JB | October 23, 2007 7:42 PM

How about the injury-riddled 1988 Dodgers, who ended up with journeyman banjo-hitter Mickey Hatcher as their clean-up hitter, beating the steroid-pumped Oakland A's of Canseco and McGwire 4-1?

2-1 odds seems ridiculous for any baseball series.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 23, 2007 11:05 PM

The oddsmaker's goal, recall, is not to accurately handicap the teams. Rather, the book wants relatively even betting on both sides. 2-1 odds means that if $100 is bet on the Rockies and $200 on the Red Sox, the book is even (and takes its profit) no matter how the series goes. This line suggests to me the strength of Red Sox fan base. Vegas expects rooting interest to lead to more bets on Boston, and has set these odds as counterbalance.

Posted by ben a | October 24, 2007 12:05 AM

Then again, Ross was in the "Iraq will be a cakewalk" camp.

Steve Sailer's comparison to 1988 is more than a little silly given what's happened to the relative strength of the two leagues since then, and the strength of that Dodgers pitching staff.

The Rockies would have been a .500 team in the American League.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | October 27, 2007 12:58 PM