11 tracked MLB positions Saturday · Jul 11 · 11 settled and still on the board
Sorted by tip / first pitch. Nothing about this order implies quality.
ATL @ STL · 7:15PM ET
Tracked✓ Won
Projection?
1.13hits
68% range0.2to2.1line 1.5?
Slight lean to the under 1.5+190at —
LINE 1.5
← under pays
proj 1.13
✓ actual 1
0model band 0.2–2.1 · no game history on this row2
34.6%
Our chance?
0.2–2.1
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 1.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 1.13 hits against a line of 1.5 — 0.37 to the under side, inside a band of ±0.9. That is barely any separation. Real, but small. Size it accordingly. After calibration we put the under at 34.6%.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 65.3%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 34.6%. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+0.48%
Break-even
34.5%
Edge vs BE
+0.2 pts
+1.90uSettled at +190 · graded from the box score.
ATL @ STL · 7:15PM ET
Tracked✗ Lost
Projection?
0.25hits
68% range0.0to5.9line 0.5?
Slight lean to the under 0.5+110at —
LINE 0.5
← under pays
proj 0.25
✗ actual 1
0model band 0.0–5.9 · no game history on this row6
48.2%
Our chance?
0.0–5.9
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 0.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 0.25 hits against a line of 0.5 — 0.25 to the under side, inside a band of ±5.7. That is barely any separation. That is close to a coin flip and we are showing it as one. After calibration we put the under at 48.2%.Risk: the band crosses the line comfortably in both directions.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 51.8%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 48.2% — closer to a coin flip. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+1.30%
Break-even
47.6%
Edge vs BE
+0.6 pts
−1.00uSettled at +110 · graded from the box score.
CHC @ CIN · 7:11PM ET
Tracked✓ Won
Projection?
1.09hits
68% range0.0to2.2line 1.5?
Slight lean to the under 1.5+185at —
LINE 1.5
← under pays
proj 1.09
✓ actual 1
0model band 0.0–2.2 · no game history on this row2
35.3%
Our chance?
0.0–2.2
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 1.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 1.09 hits against a line of 1.5 — 0.41 to the under side, inside a band of ±1.1. That is barely any separation. Real, but small. Size it accordingly. After calibration we put the under at 35.3%.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 64.7%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 35.3%. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+0.69%
Break-even
35.1%
Edge vs BE
+0.2 pts
+1.85uSettled at +185 · graded from the box score.
KC @ BAL · 7:06PM ET
Tracked✓ Won
Projection?
0.82hits
68% range0.0to2.9line 1.5?
Slight lean to the under 1.5+180at —
LINE 1.5
← under pays
proj 0.82
✓ actual 0
0model band 0.0–2.9 · no game history on this row3
36.9%
Our chance?
0.0–2.9
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 1.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 0.82 hits against a line of 1.5 — 0.68 to the under side, inside a band of ±2.0. That is barely any separation. That is close to a coin flip and we are showing it as one. After calibration we put the under at 36.9%.Risk: the band crosses the line comfortably in both directions.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 63.1%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 36.9%. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+3.29%
Break-even
35.7%
Edge vs BE
+1.2 pts
+1.80uSettled at +180 · graded from the box score.
BOS @ NYM · 4:11PM ET
Tracked✓ Won
Projection?
1.09hits
68% range0.0to2.1line 1.5?
Slight lean to the under 1.5+190at —
LINE 1.5
← under pays
proj 1.09
✓ actual 0
0model band 0.0–2.1 · no game history on this row2
34.9%
Our chance?
0.0–2.1
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 1.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 1.09 hits against a line of 1.5 — 0.41 to the under side, inside a band of ±1.1. That is barely any separation. Real, but small. Size it accordingly. After calibration we put the under at 34.9%.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 65.1%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 34.9%. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+1.09%
Break-even
34.5%
Edge vs BE
+0.4 pts
+1.90uSettled at +190 · graded from the box score.
BOS @ NYM · 4:11PM ET
Tracked⊘ Void · did not play
Projection?
0.55hits
68% range0.0to1.3line 1?
Solid lean to the under 1+105at —
LINE 1
← under pays
proj 0.55
0model band 0.0–1.3 · no game history on this row1
49.3%
Our chance?
0.0–1.3
68% range?
Solid lean to the under 1. It is a some swing one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 0.55 hits against a line of 1 — 0.45 to the under side, inside a band of ±0.7. That is a modest separation. Real, but small. Size it accordingly. After calibration we put the under at 49.3%.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 72.8%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 49.3% — closer to a coin flip. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+1.07%
Break-even
48.8%
Edge vs BE
+0.5 pts
0.00uDid not play. Voided, no stake risked, and kept on the record as a void — not deleted.
COL @ SF · 4:06PM ET
Tracked✓ Won
Projection?
0.87hits
68% range0.0to3.0line 1.5?
Slight lean to the under 1.5+165at —
LINE 1.5
← under pays
proj 0.87
✓ actual 0
0model band 0.0–3.0 · no game history on this row3
38.2%
Our chance?
0.0–3.0
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 1.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 0.87 hits against a line of 1.5 — 0.63 to the under side, inside a band of ±2.1. That is barely any separation. That is close to a coin flip and we are showing it as one. After calibration we put the under at 38.2%.Risk: the band crosses the line comfortably in both directions.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 61.8%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 38.2%. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+1.28%
Break-even
37.7%
Edge vs BE
+0.5 pts
+1.65uSettled at +165 · graded from the box score.
COL @ SF · 4:06PM ET
Tracked⊘ Void · did not play
Projection?
0.21hits
68% range0.0to3.6line 0.5?
Slight lean to the under 0.5+120at —
LINE 0.5
← under pays
proj 0.21
0model band 0.0–3.6 · no game history on this row4
46.6%
Our chance?
0.0–3.6
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 0.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 0.21 hits against a line of 0.5 — 0.29 to the under side, inside a band of ±3.4. That is barely any separation. That is close to a coin flip and we are showing it as one. After calibration we put the under at 46.6%.Risk: the band crosses the line comfortably in both directions.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 53.4%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 46.6% — closer to a coin flip. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+2.43%
Break-even
45.5%
Edge vs BE
+1.1 pts
0.00uDid not play. Voided, no stake risked, and kept on the record as a void — not deleted.
MIL @ PIT · 4:06PM ET
Tracked✓ Won
Projection?
0.67hits
68% range0.0to4.6line 1.5?
Slight lean to the under 1.5+150at —
LINE 1.5
← under pays
proj 0.67
✓ actual 0
0model band 0.0–4.6 · no game history on this row5
41.6%
Our chance?
0.0–4.6
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 1.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 0.67 hits against a line of 1.5 — 0.83 to the under side, inside a band of ±3.9. That is barely any separation. That is close to a coin flip and we are showing it as one. After calibration we put the under at 41.6%.Risk: the band crosses the line comfortably in both directions.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 58.3%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 41.6%. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+4.12%
Break-even
40.0%
Edge vs BE
+1.6 pts
+1.50uSettled at +150 · graded from the box score.
ATH @ CWS · 2:11PM ET
Tracked⊘ Void · did not play
Projection?
0.25hits
68% range0.0to1.0line 0.5?
Slight lean to the under 0.5+190at —
LINE 0.5
← under pays
proj 0.25
0model band 0.0–1.0 · no game history on this row1
37.1%
Our chance?
0.0–1.0
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 0.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 0.25 hits against a line of 0.5 — 0.25 to the under side, inside a band of ±0.8. That is barely any separation. That is close to a coin flip and we are showing it as one. After calibration we put the under at 37.1%.Risk: the band crosses the line comfortably in both directions.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 62.9%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 37.1%. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+7.56%
Break-even
34.5%
Edge vs BE
+2.6 pts
0.00uDid not play. Voided, no stake risked, and kept on the record as a void — not deleted.
LAA @ MIN · 2:11PM ET
Tracked✓ Won
Projection?
0.97hits
68% range0.0to2.6line 1.5?
Slight lean to the under 1.5+170at —
LINE 1.5
← under pays
proj 0.97
✓ actual 1
0model band 0.0–2.6 · no game history on this row3
37.3%
Our chance?
0.0–2.6
68% range?
Slight lean to the under 1.5. It is a swingy one — the projection points this way, but results still bounce around, so size it accordingly.We project 0.97 hits against a line of 1.5 — 0.53 to the under side, inside a band of ±1.6. That is barely any separation. That is close to a coin flip and we are showing it as one. After calibration we put the under at 37.3%.Risk: the band crosses the line comfortably in both directions.Calibration: the shape above, on its own, would say 62.7%. Our calibration layer pulls that to 37.3%. The number we publish, grade and pay on is the calibrated one. Raw model probabilities have historically been badly overconfident, so we never show them as the answer.
Model EV
+0.71%
Break-even
37.0%
Edge vs BE
+0.3 pts
+1.70uSettled at +170 · graded from the box score.