6.28.2012 Pittsburgh Pirates (39-35) @ Philadelphia Phillies (36-41)
Pitching Matchup: A.J. Burnett (8-2, 3.24 ERA) vs. Kyle Kendrick (2-7, 5.24 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -103
LV Over / Under Open: 8.5
The line is at PHI +108 right now, which is basically where the simulator puts it (PHI +105). It shows that a bet on either the Pirates or the Phillies is a losing proposition. However, I actually like the Phillies today as one of those speculative lines coming out of LV. The Pirates look superficially like a decent favorite with Burnett going against Kendrick, and yet the game opened as a coin-flip. As expected, the market pushed the line towards the Pirates, exactly where you'd speculate it would move.
Since the simulator has been much more right than wrong on these matters, it probably makes sense to just stay away, but I can't help thinking the Phils have a better shot at winning this game than the sim and market are suggesting.
Go Phils!
6.26.2012 Pittsburgh Pirates (38-34) @ Philadelphia Phillies (35-40)
Pitching Matchup: Erik Bedard (4-7, 4.13 ERA) vs. Vance Worley (3-4, 2.78 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -138
LV Over / Under Open: 7.5
6.25.2012 Pittsburgh Pirates (38-33) @ Philadelphia Phillies (34-40)
Pitching Matchup: Jeff Karstens (0-1, 4.50 ERA) vs. Joe Blanton (6-6, 5.04 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -138
LV Over / Under Open: 8.5
6.21.2012 Colorado Rockies (25-42) @ Philadelphia Phillies (33-37)
Pitching Matchup: Jeff Francis (0-1, 12.46 ERA) vs. Vance Worley (3-3, 2.80 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -172
LV Over / Under Open: 9.0
I won't be doing any analysis today. With Jeff Francis pitching for the Rockies, the difficultly I see in trying to forecast his performance makes this game a pass for me. I would think that the Phils could be overpriced due to this uncertainty, considering Francis has been heroically bad in his two starts this season, but that won't change my mind.
Go Phils!
Process or results. An aging veteran towards the end of his career is signed and produces a season beyond expectations. Was it a savvy move by the team's General Manager? Perhaps the GM realized decline phase athletes went from over-priced commodities to under-priced. Or perhaps the GM concocted his value out of perception: "I can't believe THIS GUY is available. He's got over 350 career home runs! We're signing him!" It is never as simple as either case, but potentially more important than the why is the question of does the why even matter. Again: process or results.
A couple of years ago I read an interesting article at the Hardball Times which addressed this very concept in relation to the San Francisco Giants GM Brian Sabean. Sabean is constant fodder for many sabermetrically inclined individuals, mostly for good reasons in my opinion. His career MO for a long time had been to sign veteran players to large contracts beyond their value (at least according to the SABR community). Many believed he didn't extract nearly enough value - in terms of playoff success - from the Barry Bonds led teams. And until Pablo Sandoval came along, the farm system for the Giants didn't produce what you could consider an above average offensive position player (sorry, Pedro Feliz). I think these are fair criticisms, but the irony of it all is the article was written in November 2010. If you are missing the relevance, it was just a week after the Giants needed only 5 games to dispatch the heavily favored Texas Rangers in the World Series. That was Sabean's 14th season with the team, the 2nd World Series appearance during his tenure (first win), 5th playoff appearance, and 10th winning season. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue his 14 years with the Giants were unsuccessful. Again, you could say they should have been more successful, but that is a different discussion.
So Brian Sabean teams had good results even if his process was considered suboptimal* to some. Last night the Phillies beat the Rockies in somewhat dramatic fashion, needing one of the best first baseman of the last 25 years to suddenly forget how to play the position. If you read my post yesterday, you will realize the simulator thought the Rockies were a really good play. It calculated that last night's game was a bit over a coin-flip (53%) in favor of the Phillies, despite the line (and at least one well thought of simulation) putting it at around a 60/40 game. It is impossible due to the outcome of one game to calculate the future probability one team will beat another, but for most of the game - especially going into the bottom of the ninth - it looked to be much closer to an even odds game than a 60/40 one. Ultimately the simulator was wrong - in a zero sum way - about which way to bet the game last night. And just because the game was very even in its entirety, doesn't mean the true odds for the game were closer to 50/50 than 60/40. But even though mathematically it cannot be proven which was closer to the truth, I'll say that the simulator presented a value which felt closer to the truth. The process made sense and produced an answer that seemed more sensible, especially after watching the game. The results just didn't come.
*There is an obvious question lingering out there which I will not attempt to answer: was his process suboptimal? I think the article does a pretty good job of addressing the major points, so I'll defer you there
6.20.2012 Colorado Rockies (25-41) @ Philadelphia Phillies (32-27)
Pitching Matchup: Alex White (2-5, 5.56 ERA) vs. Joe Blanton (6-6, 4.93 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -143
LV Over / Under Open: 9.5
Good win last night for the Phils. Tonight they try to make it two in a row (small victories!), which will be much easier if Joe Blanton can pitch as well as he did during his last start. The simulator thinks the Rockies are a good play though, good for an 11.5% expected ROI where the line is right now (COL +139). I mentioned yesterday that the line movement I was observing seemed to suggest the Phils were really a stronger favorite than the opening line suggested. I'm seeing very similar line movement today, which could suggest the simulator is wrong about tonight. For comparison sake, AccuScore has the Phils as a 56% favorite and TeamRankings puts it at nearly 59%. An aggregation of the methods would put it at about 56%, or about PHI -132 when converted into a money line value. That would still make the Rockies a play at +139, but the ROI would go down by about half.
The simulator loves the under tonight, even at 9.0 where it is now, with 55% of simulations going under 9.0. Subjectively I actually like the over, so it would be a pass for me.
Go Phils!
6.19.2012 Colorado Rockies (25-40) @ Philadelphia Phillies (31-37)
Pitching Matchup: Josh Outman (0-2, 8.44 ERA) vs. Cole Hamels (9-3, 3.34 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -230
LV Over / Under Open: 8.0
A lot of line movement today: the Phils opened at -230, then the line fell to -205 by 10am this morning, and has since steadily climbed back toward where it opened last night. When I have observed this pattern over the last several weeks, it has seemed that the favorite wins at a far higher rate than would be expected. I must emphasize that is an assessment best characterized as subjective and based on a limited sample. The simulator puts the expected line at PHI -227, which is nearly exactly where it is at the moment (PHI -225). Neither team looks like a good play tonight.
The O/U started at 8.0, but was bet down to 7.5. The simulator has it going over 7.5 a little over 52% of the time, which equates to 7.5o -115. That seems to be the line at most of the books I've checked.
Go Phils!
6.15.2012 Philadelphia Phillies (31-34) @ Toronto Blue Jays (31-32)
Pitching Matchup: Vance Worley (3-2, 3.00 ERA) vs. Drew Hutchinson (5-3, 4.66 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: TOR -125
LV Over / Under Open: 9.0
Sometimes I can't escape thinking about the Ludic Fallacy when I'm deciding the best play on a game. The term, coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book The Black Swan, is the idea that using mathematical models to predict future events - except in very specific scenarios like casino games - is largely fallacious. His argument hinges on three things: 1) it is impossible to possess all the information impacting the outcome 2) unknown variations within the data can have large impact on the outcome 3) models based on empirical data are flawed since they do not account for outcomes that have never happened (so-called "Black Swan" events). The first and second ideas are certainly true and exceptionally important in the sports betting realm, especially since Cantor Gaming has more, better information than everyone else and understands it more completely. The third idea is not entirely relevant to baseball though, since baseball is basically a Markov chain where the individual probabilistic elements can be fairly well calculated. Certainly serious disasters would not be part of the any baseball simulation model*, but they're much less relevant than say trying to empirically model how an asteroid impact would affect the stock market.
If sports betting was about the individual better versus Cantor Gaming, I would completely agree that the idea of any individual beating the system over any extended length of time is extremely improbable. As I said, CG has the best information and some of the smartest people in the business, I wouldn't even bet on myself to beat them consistently. But it isn't all about beating Vegas, since once the opening line is set it is the public (market) who moves the line. So the win consistently, you don't have to be smarter than CG, you have to be smarter than the market. That too is a difficult proposition, as sports betting markets are reasonably efficient, and through aggregate account for far more information than Midas can. But markets aren't always efficient, and they can be affected by perception whereas models are not. Sometimes perception informs reality, but sometimes not. If you read me frequently, I like to talk about how perception and bias are being priced in the market, and how I feel that gives me an opportunity to exploit that inefficiency.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm referring to what happened last night. Now basing any opinion on an N of 1 is terribly bad policy, but many of the effects I've been discussing were in play last night. Joe Blanton was stringing together bad game after bad game and Scott Diamond was looking like a left handed Maddux-lite in 2012. But as I said in the post yesterday, that small sample was largely ignored by the simulator, whereas the market seemed to be pricing that recent history into the line. I should have taken advantage of the opportunity to agree with the simulator's assertion that the Phils were a strong play, but I didn't. Hopefully next time I will.
If you're disappointed I haven't spent any time addressing tonight's game, it's because the simulator doesn't see a bet on either team as a good proposition. It has PHI +117 as barely a 1% expected return, which is not nearly what I'm looking for when deciding to recommend a game. Enjoy staying out of this one.
Go Phils!
*I'm sure Game 3 of the 1989 World Series comes to mind when I make this statement, but the game was temporarily suspended and then resumed 5 days later. I'm not sure whether it had any impact on the outcome of Game 3 - or the series - as the Athletics won every game in that series by at least 3 runs. Some may argue that the Giants were adversely affected by the quake, but in fact the Giants scored as many runs in Game 3 as they did in the other three games combined
6.14.2012 Philadelphia Phillies (30-34) @ Minnesota Twins (25-36)
Pitching Matchup: Joe Blanton (5-6, 5.40 ERA) vs. Scott Diamond (5-1, 1.61 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: MIN -126
LV Over / Under Open: 9.0
Even when they win the Phils enjoy torturing their fans. There aren't many times that a 6-0 lead has proven to be so tenuous with Hamels pitching, but last night was one of those times. Something has gotten into the Phillies pitching staff, and it isn't good.
Tonight Joe Blanton faces Scott Diamond. Blanton is attempting to stop his ignominious streak of 5 consecutive games of giving up 5 earned runs or more and failing to get out of the seventh inning. In the last 50 years only 13 pitchers have had a longer streak. What does that stat mean? Absolutely nothing beyond being passably interesting, I think. Certainly the simulator doesn't care about Blanton's search for history. Nor does it care that so far this season Scott Diamond has looked like Greg Maddux in his prime. You think I'm being ridiculous? Go ahead, look at the numbers below comparing Diamond's 2012 to Maddux's 1997 (his highest WAR season):
Ok. So maybe I did exaggerate a little. Scott Diamond's 2012 probably resembles Maddux's seasons a few years later, though need I remind you Maddux was still a very effective pitcher later in his career. I am not, under any circumstances, making the claim that Scott Diamond is the next Greg Maddux. Diamond has shown very good control this year a la Maddux and has been fantastic at inducing ground balls (though his 61% GB rate will almost certainly regress to human levels, he did show good ground ball rates in the minors). But back to my point: the simulator doesn't yet care too much about any of that. His success this season, though extraordinary, is based on a 7 game sample. In the same sample of games last year he walked nearly 5 times as many batters while striking out 1 fewer per nine innings resulting in a 5.08 ERA. This is to say that small samples, as we all know, can be misleading (as can W% and ERA for that matter, but look over there, a distraction!).
So the simulator sees this game as a coin flip, but Vegas has the Twins as somewhat reasonable favorites. I think there is too much uncertainty and volatility to call this a play for the Phils, despite the simulators claim of a +10.6% ROI betting the Phils +123. Yesterday I lamented the long drought between recommendations for betting on the Phils. I guess maybe we'll have to wait at least one more day.
Go Phils!
MONEY LINE: Pass
OVER / UNDER: Pass
6.13.2012 Philadelphia Phillies (29-34) @ Minnesota Twins (25-35)
Pitching Matchup: Cole Hamels (8-3, 2.93 ERA) vs. P.J. Walters (2-1, 4.42 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: MIN +141
LV Over / Under Open: 8.0
It feels to be somewhere between 8 or 9 games since I last indicated the Phils were a good money line play. Emotionally it has been an exhausting run, but for your wallet it has been very good. And here I am again with the same message: the Twins look to be a good play tonight. At MIN +140 where the line is now, the simulator shows an expected return of about +3.6%, which is pretty much par for the course the last couple of weeks. Part of me is really hoping that the simulator is wrong tonight, but there are two benefits to a Phils loss: 1) monetary windfall 2) the growing possibility that RAJ is gone at the end of the season.*
The simulator really likes the under 8.0 tonight, showing the game going under 56% of the time (when you don't include the 7.1% of games ending on 8).
Go Phils!
*Candidly I wish he was gone very soon so that a savvy GM had time to get value for Cole (if they're not going to sign him), Shane and Pence. I don't have any delusions that this will happen, but I can dream.
6.12.2012 Philadelphia Phillies (29-33) @ Minnesota Twins (24-35)
Pitching Matchup: Kyle Kendrick (2-5, 4.44 ERA) vs. Nick Blackburn (2-4, 7.75 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: MIN +109
LV Over / Under Open: 9.0
This morning I ran the simulation expecting Carlos Ruiz to bat 6th, Hector Luna to play first (batting 9th) and Ty Wigginton to play third. The Twins lineup for that simulation was the same as it is now. During that simulation, the Phillies won 51.3% of games indicating an expected money line of PHI -109 (MIN + 103). This aligned pretty well with where Vegas opened the line, which was PHI -116 (MIN +109). By those numbers, the simulation showed there was some value in betting on the Twins, and the market followed suit betting the line all the way to PHI +102 by about 12:45 this afternoon.
At the time I considered the line movement an over-correction, but then something funny happened at about 5:00pm when the lineups were released: Michael Martinez was in the starting lineup (expelling Hector Luna) and Carlos Ruiz was batting 7th. On the surface these changes may not seem like much (or at all funny), but they moved the Phillies' win projection from 51.3% to 48.8%. At the current money line of MIN -104 (PHI -102), a bet on the Twins to win is expected to return you about +2.4% according to the simulation. I like to check a few other simulations on the internet for reference and I almost invariably find that my simulator is somewhere in the middle. Once again that holds true, as AccuScore puts the Phillies' win probability at roughly 56% and Team Rankings has it at about 48%. By those numbers AccuScore would call the Phillies a really good play tonight and Team Rankings would call the Twins a really good play. My simulator, as I mentioned, thinks the Twins are a decent play and I'm inclined to agree with the simulator (and TR). Traditionally when the favorite changes it indicates something was wrong with the original line. Though in the MIDAS world I tend to believe the opening line is only wrong when they want it to be, I think this may be an instance where some of the original assumptions for the line ended up being wrong (evidenced by my morning and night simulations) and the line movement was not purposefully induced movement by Cantor Gaming speculation. Then again, the average of the three simulations gives the Phillies a 51% chance of winning, so if you're a wisdom of crowds person maybe you lay off the game.
The O/U of 9.0 seems pretty much dead on. Just under 10% of simulations land on the total, 44.2% go over and 46.1% go under (that's a 49/51 split when ignoring the push on 9.0).
Go Phils!
6.8.2012 Philadelphia Phillies (28-31) @ Baltimore Orioles (32-25)
Pitching Matchup: Joe Blanton (4-6, 5.27 ERA) vs. Jake Arrieta (2-7, 5.53 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: BAL -115
LV Over / Under Open: 9.0
The simulator indicated a good amount of expected return when the line opened at BAL -115, but unfortunately at this point that is all but gone. At BAL -128 currently, the simulator estimates an expected ROI of +1.0% betting on the Orioles. That is too close to call this a recommended play.
The simulator loves the under 9.0, but I don't. I don't think the simulator does a good job adjusting for run environment for inter-league games, so you'll probably find that I ignore the O/U for all of those games this year.
Go Phils!
6.7.2012 Los Angeles Dodgers (36-21) @ Philadelphia Phillies (28-30)
Pitching Matchup: Aaron Harang (4-3, 3.90 ERA) vs. Cole Hamels (8-2, 2.81 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -180
LV Over / Under Open: 7.5
The Phils try to avoid the sweep this afternoon and with Cole Hamels on the mound there is hope that they can do it. The simulation certainly has them winning a large majority of the time, but as of the current money line (PHI -188) it isn't enough to consider them a smart play. This is another game where the line movement has been all over the place. Early money on the Dodgers moved the line to PHI -174, which is almost exactly the value the sim prices the line at. Then this morning the line jumped 16 units in the other direction, up to PHI -190. From there it has bounced up and down, getting to as low as PHI -183. At the current price, LAD +176 gives you an expected return of 2.9%, which isn't great but isn't so bad either.
I initially liked the under 7.5 a lot (as did the sim), but it has since moved to 7.0 which is slightly less attractive. Maybe lay off this game completely, unless of course the ~3% expected ROI betting on the Dodgers excites you. Certainly could be a nice emotional hedge.
Go Phils!
6.6.2012 Los Angeles Dodgers (35-21) @ Philadelphia Phillies (28-29)
Pitching Matchup: Chris Capuano (7-2, 2.50 ERA) vs. Kyle Kendrick (2-4, 4.02 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -110
LV Over / Under Open: 8.0
I talked extensively - and potentially illogically - yesterday about interpreting line movement. I won't go into nearly as much detail today, but there was a very early play on the Dodgers last night when the line opened, and then the line moved even more quickly back to where it started at PHI -110. And it basically remained there ever since (it's now recently changed to PHI -109). There are multiple factors that lead me to believe this is not a good play either way, despite the 5% expected return the simulator is showing in betting on the Dodgers. I don't have the time tonight to go into them all, just know that I'm recommending staying away completely.
The simulator puts the fair price O/U at 7.5o -125, so if you can get it at 7.5o -110 like I've seen at least one book, that is probably the smart play for tonight.
Go Phils!
6.5.2012 Los Angeles Dodgers (34-21) @ Philadelphia Phillies (28-28)
Pitching Matchup: Chad Billingsley (2-4, 4.09 ERA) vs. Cliff Lee (0-2, 3.00 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI -172
LV Over / Under Open: 7.0
There has been interesting movement in the money line for this game that I'm not quite sure what to make of yet. It opened at PHI -172, but an hour or so later dropped to PHI -167. Two hours later it jumped even more precipitously in the opposite direction to PHI -182. Since then we've seen several unit corrections upward and downward, finally settling at PHI -180. The simulator indicates the fair price line is more like PHI -177, so at the current price you're not getting any expected value in betting on the Phils.
But what to make of the line movement and its implications? As you are probably well aware, Vegas traditionally wanted to set the opening line as efficiently as possible. But in the new world of MIDAS, Cantor Gaming has stated they are willing to take a speculative position at times when setting a line. Is this one of those instances? Let us suppose MIDAS and CG are the best at determining the most accurate win/loss probabilities for games. And let us also suppose they are very good at predicting which way the market will lean based on the probabilities they set. So now let's examine two scenarios based on this game: one where CG thinks the MIDAS line will be similar to what the markets predicts and one where CG thinks the MIDAS line will differ from the market so they could potentially take a speculative position.
Initially we assumed that MIDAS and CG are good at two very important things: accurately calculating probability and inferring market reaction. If that is the case - and we have very good reasons to believe that it is - then the first scenario makes no sense based on the line movement: a quick 5 unit line movement in one direction followed fairly quickly by a 15 unit line movement in the opposite direction. But does that type of line movement support the second scenario, and if so, how?
I've discussed in the past the ease with which we can build narratives to fit any randomness, but stay with me for a minute. To move the line 5 units towards the Dodgers, a reasonably substantial bet or bets must have been placed on the Dodgers when the line opened at LAD +161. Likewise, to move the line 15 units back in the opposite direction in a single move, lots of money would have come in on the Phillies at PHI -157 after the 5 unit swing. I think the 15 unit move is very representative of the market's opinion on the game. If you look at Accuscore, they put the Phillies win probability at 73% (equates to around PHI -270), which is way beyond the current market price but is at least representative of where the line is now relative to the open. So if you're CG and you know the line will likely move towards the Phillies, and you were trying to set the line in a speculative fashion, you would probably set the line about exactly where they did at the open. But this logic doesn't explain the 5 unit initial move towards the Dodgers. Or does it? If you knew that CG was appearing to under-price the Phils to generate bets on the other side, then betting the Dodgers on open would be a smart move because you'd know CG was taking your position as well. Historically sharps are the ones who bet early to take advantage of the inefficiencies in the line, so could they have been the source of the 5 unit move? Maybe, but then wouldn't they have doubled down on that bet now that you're getting paid even more for a Dodger win (+169), thus moving the line back in the opposite direction?
Confused? I am. If you were looking for an answer, you're not going to get one. I said at the very beginning that I'm not quite sure what to make of the line movement yet. And obviously I'm still not; it's just too confusing and with limited information on the betting (how much and by whom) and CG's motives (other than to make lots of money) I'm stumped. I'm staying away from this game completely, but if I were following the narrative above, don't bet on Cliff Lee getting his first win of the season.
Go Phils!
6.4.2012 Los Angeles Dodgers (33-21) @ Philadelphia Phillies (28-27)
Pitching Matchup: Clayton Kershaw (4-3, 2.42 ERA) vs. Vance Worley (3-2, 3.07 ERA)
LV Money Line Open: PHI +122
LV Over / Under Open: 7.0
According to the simulator the opening money line was devaluing the Phillies in the game too much, and we've seen that bear out in the market as the line has fallen to around PHI +108 depending where you look. The simulator shows that as an over-correction, putting the fair line at closer to PHI +115. Betting LAD -114 you're getting about 1.4% expected ROI, not enough for me to call it a recommended play under normal circumstances. However, I've been reading a lot lately about MIDAS at Cantor Gaming, and based on what I've read I think LAD is probably a better play than the 1.4% I mentioned earlier. How much better, I don't know, and I won't go into detail yet on why I think that as I need to do a much more methodical look into it before saying anything. If that makes you question the legitimacy of my assertions on the game, I don't blame you at all.
Go Phils!
