Skip to content

Red Sox are World Series favorites (according to Las Vegas)

Oct 21, 2013, 10:15 AM EDT

gambling poster

As HBT’s resident degenerate I feel it’s my duty to pass along the gambling odds for the World Series.

Boston is a -140 favorite, which means you’d have to risk $140 to win $100 on the Red Sox becoming champions. On the flip side, St. Louis is a +120 underdog, which means risking $100 would win you $120 if the Cardinals win the title.

In terms of break-even win rates, those lines equal 58 percent for the Red Sox and 46 percent for the Cardinals. So, while not quite a coin flip, it’s pretty damn close.

  1. jcmeyer10 - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

    Tell you the truth, I would think it’s the other way around.

    • gloccamorra - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:07 PM

      It IS, but the Vegas odds makers don’t want you to bet that way. Last Spring they tagged Bud Black of the Padres as the most likely manager to be fired, citing new owners and a new GM. They suckered in Matt Snyder of CBS.

      He didn’t check that the new managing owner, Ron Fowler, had represented the OLD minority owners that recommended Black in the first place. Matt should have looked into new GM Josh Byrnes’ background too. He started as a rookie scout in 1996 with Cleveland the same time Bud Black started as a scout with Cleveland after his playing days, and they helped each other, Byrnes with statistical analysis, Black with his knowledge of pitching.

      Always remember those Vegas boys know how to make money – for themselves.

      • darklighter - Oct 21, 2013 at 3:44 PM

        Good story bro!

  2. cabrera24 - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

    I got Red Sox winning in seven games .

    • pinkfloydprism - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM

      Gosh, I hope not. I am from Massachusetts, and always believed that if the Red Sox won a world series in Fenway Park, that Boston would just fall into the ocean or something, right? I mean, it has to be a sign of the apocalypse by now? Don’t get me wrong, I want them to win… but can you imagine the riots in that city if they actually win in Boston, and not on the road? 04 and 07 happened on the road for a reason I believe.

      • jcmeyer10 - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM

        “KIDS GET IN THE HOUSE. HONEY PUT UP THE 1 INCH THICK REEFORCED PLYWOOD AND TURN OFF ALL THE LIGHTS”.

      • aceshigh11 - Oct 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM

        It won’t be a four-game sweep THIS time, that’s for damned sure.

      • pinkfloydprism - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:58 PM

        I agree… but never say never… I did not think it would be in 04 either. Plus, sweeps are so anti-climactic anyway. The World Series needs on edge, nail-biting drama associated with it.

      • gloccamorra - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        The apocalypse is when they lose to the Cubs.

      • pinkfloydprism - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:35 PM

        Or when the Cubs actually make the WS.

  3. chill1184 - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM

    Go Red Sox

  4. spudchukar - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

    No guarantees or predictions, but I like the Cards chances. Getting Craig back to DH is huge. And while the Red Sox starters are a solid bunch, I just don’t believe they have the stuff to shut down the Cards. Some might believe the Cards starters cannot hold the Sox down either, but having Wainwright and Wacha to begin the series, and then have the less steady Kelly/Lynn/Miller trio to be able to pitch at home is a boost.

    Both teams’ back end of bull pens have been brilliant. In my mind the series will hinge on which teams starters can get to the back end better, cause neither middle relief hurlers are notably strong.

    • dweiss13th - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM

      are you serious? You must be a Cards fan, which is fine and you should root for your team. However, don’t suspend reality here. Did the Tigers have DOMINATING STARTERS? Much better than the Cards!! MUCH FREAKING BETTER. National league ERA #s are garbage against AL batting orders. Same with win loss. Look at strikeouts per nine and multiply by .85 if you want to know how good you will fare.
      OH AND WHAT ABOUT TIGERS HITTING?

      Hmm Miguel Cabrera, Fielder, Peralta…I think they are pretty tough too.
      I would say that the Cardinals chances are decent, but because they have GOOD CHEMISTRY like the Sox, not because of any dominance. I dont think the Sox dominate either.

      The Cards beat a Dodgers team which would consider loaded with talent and really short on Chemistry…really short. Same with Tigers teams. That is why they lost. No one DOMINATED on the mound or at the plate.

      This is what World Series Baseball is all about. Two teams with great chemistry making the most out of their talent. Should be great and neither city’s fans should be predicting who is better based on individual performance. I think the Pennant series proved that individuals DO NOT win!!

      • cohnjusack - Oct 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM

        I would say the Cardinals chances are decent because they score of runs and don’t give up very many. In fact, I think the key to their success against the Dodgers was scoring more runs than them in 4 of the 6 games.

        I attribute this to the Cardinals hitters being really good (though they didn’t show it during the Dodgers series) and their pitching being really good. I don’t think they won because everyone was really good friends. Why do I discount this you may ask? Because I’m not 8 years old.

      • kevinbnyc - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:20 PM

        Why are you yelling?

      • kruegere - Oct 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM

        The Tigers’ SP did extremely well against the Red Sox.

        Its the bullpen that blew up.

      • bubba99m - Oct 22, 2013 at 7:13 PM

        I think when cohnjusack eventually does turn 8 he will probably understand how much chemistry affects performance. But that will be a few more years..

    • spudchukar - Oct 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM

      Is reading comprehension an elective in New England? You are projecting here dude. No mention of “dominating” nor “predicting”. Defensive a little, I think.

      • paperlions - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM

        Too bad Word press doesn’t have some sort of age verification thingy and the ability to post someone’s age (or age range) after their name. I think that would make a lot of comments make a lot more sense…well, no, it wouldn’t, they still wouldn’t make sense, but at least you could go “oh, yeah, a 14 yr old” and just ignore them.

    • wfs266 - Oct 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

      I’ve always been a Sox fan but I honestly didn’t think they matched up well against the Detroit starters. It’s way to hard to predict who is going to do what once the playoffs start.

  5. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    What does Vegas have as the over/under on Shane Victorino HBPs? I’ll guess 8 in a seven game series.

    • jcmeyer10 - Oct 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM

      I have little doubt that there is a prop bet out there somewhere. I would take the over on 2.5.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Oct 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM

        It was lost on most since the AB ended with his grad slam, but SV tried SO HARD to get hit by the first pitch of that at bat it was silly. He did the “spin halfway but lean over the plate” move, but he didn’t QUITE lean in far enough.

  6. joestemme - Oct 21, 2013 at 11:38 AM

    I’d call it a dead even series, but, home field is probably the very slight tipping point for Vegas as well.

    • jcmeyer10 - Oct 21, 2013 at 12:15 PM

      Yah, probably like in football where the home team (when teams evenly matched) usually get a -3.5 point line.

      • joestemme - Oct 21, 2013 at 12:26 PM

        And, Fenway Park in particular, is probably a full 4 point advantage in football terms with its wall, odd dimensions and bizarre angles, curios and corners etc.

      • gloccamorra - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM

        Don’t forget the ghosts! Fenway has ghosts of players past, some of whom aren’t even dead yet.

  7. thomas655 - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    Since STL and Boston had identical records in the regular season, which team would have had home field advantage if the ridiculous “All-Star winner gets home field advantage in the World Series” rule was not in place? I just do not believe that the All-Star game should determine which league gets home field advantage.

    • temporarilyexiled - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:37 PM

      I believe it used to alternate back and forth every year, regardless of record. I never liked that either. With interleague play now a staple, surely there’s some sort of added way to use record against the other or one of the many other tie-breakers available. Now if they could just revive many a player’s interest in the All-Star Game, we’d be getting somewhere.

      • gloccamorra - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM

        The best way is a ceremonial coin flip, expanded into an hour long extravaganza with dance numbers and special effects.

    • mornelithe - Oct 21, 2013 at 7:38 PM

      I’m ok with changing the home field advantage rules, why not make it interleague record? Or overall AL vs NL interleague record ;)

  8. Anoesis - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    Resident degenerate? How’d you get that sweet gig?

    • gloccamorra - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:58 PM

      A title like that is bestowed by colleagues, not appointed by management. In fact, the less management knows…

  9. temporarilyexiled - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:27 PM

    Yes, and these odds will be accurate 104% of the time.

  10. denverwally - Oct 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM

    Forget the All-Star game. Home field for the World Series should be determined by which LEAGUE had the better record in interleague play. At least those games actually count for something.

  11. flatsorter - Oct 21, 2013 at 8:30 PM

    How does 58 + 46 + 100 ?

  12. flatsorter - Oct 21, 2013 at 8:31 PM

    How does 58 + 46 = 100 ?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3933)
  2. Y. Molina (2896)
  3. R. Castillo (2846)
  4. B. Posey (2260)
  5. A. Rizzo (2182)
  1. J. Ellsbury (2173)
  2. M. Cabrera (1940)
  3. D. Murphy (1934)
  4. A. Dunn (1934)
  5. D. Wright (1921)