Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

2017 season

Those numbers could be in wild card contention. I say over.
 
Because of the odds? How many teams have had bad odds that went to a WS, or even won? They might be average but basing that off Vegas odds is a bit ridiculous.


2016 CHC 4-1 vs CLE 16-1 (DET 30-1)

2015 KCR 30-1 vs NYM 30-1 (DET 18-1)

2014 SFG 20-1 vs KCR 50-1 (DET 8-1)

2013 BOS 35-1 vs STL 18-1 (DET 9-1)

2012 SFG 15-1 vs DET 8-1 (DET 8-1)

2011 STL 14-1 vs TEX 16-1 (DET 35-1)

2010 SFG 12-1 vs TEX 12-1 (DET 18-1)

2009 NYY 5-2 vs PHI 11-1 (DET 20-1)

2008 PHI 14-1 vs TBR 150-1 (DET 12-1)

2007 BOS 10-1 vs COL 90-1 (DET 5-1)

2006 STL 8-1 vs DET 100-1 (DET 100-1)


Average odds for WS Winner last 11 seasons = 15-1. The only winner that had a higher odds than 2017 DET odds (33-1) is BOS at 35-1. Only twice in the last 11 years did the team with the worst odds to start the season, win the World Series, 2013 BOS and 2012 SFG against DET.

Yes, teams with lousy odds can make it. Sometimes, like 2006 Tigers, it is Rookies or younger players who weren't expected to do much coming in a performing above average (Granderson, Verlander, Zumaya) or other players having unexpected career years (Thames).

My point is that Vegas Odds are not created in a vacuum. There is a reason this team is projected to be middle of the pack. Understanding the odds at winning in Blackjack or the lottery, doesn't mean someone won't beat the odds and win. But it also offers insight into when to fold or when not to. They could trade for a decent starting CFer and could alter their odds big time. Vegas Odds, whether lottery or baseball, does not take "luck" into the equation. It takes a certain amount of "luck" in any professional sports to win. Yes, it also takes talent. But that talent has to remain healthy and has to perform as expected.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/c...world-series-according-to-odds-215254424.html

DET is 33 to 1 to win the World Series. 12 teams have better odds. 3 others have the same as DET. In essence, DET is an average team.

Most books have them at 30-1 which puts them in the middle of the pack...a little above (vegas insider has them tied for 13th/14th with Seattle)

I kind of look at it in tiers.

1st tier <10/1

Cubs
Red Sox
Indians

2nd tier 10/1-20/1

LAD
Nats
Stros
Giants
Mets

3rd tier 21/1 - 40/1

NYY
Jays
Cards
Tigers
Mariners

4th tier 41/1 - 80/1

Balt
KCR
Rockies
Marlins
LAD

5th Tier >80/1

CWS
TB
AZ
ATL
Oak
Philly
Twins
Reds
Brew
SD


FWIW - The Tigers opened at 20/1 which means Vegas was not excited about the Tiger's off season when compared to other teams above them!
 
2016 CHC 4-1 vs CLE 16-1 (DET 30-1)

2015 KCR 30-1 vs NYM 30-1 (DET 18-1)

2014 SFG 20-1 vs KCR 50-1 (DET 8-1)

2013 BOS 35-1 vs STL 18-1 (DET 9-1)

2012 SFG 15-1 vs DET 8-1 (DET 8-1)

2011 STL 14-1 vs TEX 16-1 (DET 35-1)

2010 SFG 12-1 vs TEX 12-1 (DET 18-1)

2009 NYY 5-2 vs PHI 11-1 (DET 20-1)

2008 PHI 14-1 vs TBR 150-1 (DET 12-1)

2007 BOS 10-1 vs COL 90-1 (DET 5-1)

2006 STL 8-1 vs DET 100-1 (DET 100-1)


Average odds for WS Winner last 11 seasons = 15-1. The only winner that had a higher odds than 2017 DET odds (33-1) is BOS at 35-1. Only twice in the last 11 years did the team with the worst odds to start the season, win the World Series, 2013 BOS and 2012 SFG against DET.

Yes, teams with lousy odds can make it. Sometimes, like 2006 Tigers, it is Rookies or younger players who weren't expected to do much coming in a performing above average (Granderson, Verlander, Zumaya) or other players having unexpected career years (Thames).

My point is that Vegas Odds are not created in a vacuum. There is a reason this team is projected to be middle of the pack. Understanding the odds at winning in Blackjack or the lottery, doesn't mean someone won't beat the odds and win. But it also offers insight into when to fold or when not to. They could trade for a decent starting CFer and could alter their odds big time. Vegas Odds, whether lottery or baseball, does not take "luck" into the equation. It takes a certain amount of "luck" in any professional sports to win. Yes, it also takes talent. But that talent has to remain healthy and has to perform as expected.

But it happens though even if it's 2% or 5%. 2006 is a great example. It was such a fun season, no one expected the Tigers to do anything. Like I said they might be average but when the season starts who knows..

Plus this is why sports fans have hope every year in February, we're all 0-0.\

Edit: Plus 7 times 30-1 and higher to get to a WS in a 11 years is pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Mike Pelfrey lost 25 pounds during the offseason.
"Pelfrey wants to regain flexibility, so he's hoping to lose even more weight this spring. He's doing what he can, but his role is in question right now. The veteran right-hander posted a rough 5.07 ERA in his first season with Detroit. He's owed $8 million this year." Feb 15 - 10:11 AM
Source: Jason Beck on Twitter
 
Because of the odds? How many teams have had bad odds that went to a WS, or even won? They might be average but basing that off Vegas odds is a bit ridiculous.

Every team is average right now. They all have identical records until the beginning of April, or thereabout.

Yep, lots of teams with bad odds have done better than expected; even got to or won the WS.

Also lots of teams that were the favorites have fallen on their faces.

I think I already can get the games on Sirius XM radio. I'll probably just listen to the games on the radio rather than pay for the season subscription.
 
Every team is average right now. They all have identical records until the beginning of April, or thereabout.

Yep, lots of teams with bad odds have done better than expected; even got to or won the WS.

Also lots of teams that were the favorites have fallen on their faces.

I think I already can get the games on Sirius XM radio. I'll probably just listen to the games on the radio rather than pay for the season subscription.

Me too. I was thinking Sirius but for games, $20 a month. I might go with Gameday Audio, only $20 a year. But I don't have a radio so I'll have to get one, or get Premium Tunein for $7.99 a month and listen through my echo. But that's still a lot..
 
Now I see they added MLB audio standalone to the Echo just recently. So that might work..
 
Too many question marks with this team to expect a better thanaverage record but if we can avoid long stints on the DL and our young trio of SPs can hold their own, and I'm including Fulmer because as great as he was last year it's still only one season, this team could easily contend thus year. A lot to expect but it's not crazy either.
 
Last edited:
Am I out of my mind or does anyone else think Zimmerman is done being a reliable starter? I know it's only spring training and he suffered through injuries last year, but my gut feeling and everything I've seen and heard just gives me the impression that he is going to be a back of the rotation guy the rest of his career. I have absolutely zero faith he will be remotely near what he was on the Nats.
 
Also, put a whopping $5 on the Tigers at the sports book in Vegas a few weekends back. Fingers crossed.
 
Am I out of my mind or does anyone else think Zimmerman is done being a reliable starter? I know it's only spring training and he suffered through injuries last year, but my gut feeling and everything I've seen and heard just gives me the impression that he is going to be a back of the rotation guy the rest of his career. I have absolutely zero faith he will be remotely near what he was on the Nats.



Pump the brakes.

Tons of people said the same thing about Verlander last year, how he'd lost it, needed to go to the 'pen, even arguing he should become the closer. But when the dust settled, Verlander was arguably the best pitcher in the A.L. last season.

For the billionth (or is it trillionth, I lost count) time, ST stats mean absolutely nothing.
 
Pump the brakes.

Tons of people said the same thing about Verlander last year, how he'd lost it, needed to go to the 'pen, even arguing he should become the closer. But when the dust settled, Verlander was arguably the best pitcher in the A.L. last season.

For the billionth (or is it trillionth, I lost count) time, ST stats mean absolutely nothing.

I generally agree regarding the ST stats. But that coupled with his injuries coupled with mediocre starts in 2016 when healthy just really concerns me. Again, it's just a gut feeling I guess but to me Zimmerman is well past his prime.
 
Back
Top