Posted Sunday, January 17, 2010 08:13 AM
I know the postseason is a "new" season and all situational spots are different but I'm just wondering what Vikings backers have to say about this:
If you throw out the garbage game at the end of the year where the Giants quit, did you know Minnesota only played 6 games all season against offenses ranked in the Top 20? That's right, they played 10 of 16 games this year against offenses in the bottom 12 of the league (counted the Giants here because they quit).
Look what their defense did (or didn't do) against those 6 offenses in the Top 20:
Points allowed: 23, 31, 27, 26, 30, and 26 for an average of 27.1 per game.
Yards allowed: 424, 448, 259, 331, 398, and 397 for an average of 376 per game.
Opposing QB completion %: 70, 65, 54, 63, 69, and 64 for a total of 137 passes complete out of 212 or 65%.
Opposing QB Yards Per Attempt: 10.4, 9.0, 6.7, 7.0, 8.9, and 9.1
Opposing Yards Per Carry allowed: 4.8, 4.5, 5.6, 4.7, 4.5 and 3.1
Opposing QB Ratings: 110.6, 109.2, 87.8, 108.5, 127.7, and 123.2
Opposing QB TD/INT Ratio: 14-1
The Vikings went 3-3 SU and 2-4 ATS in those games with 2 wins coming over Green Bay and the other on a last second missed FG by Baltimore.
We've all heard or know how big
momentum is in the game of football and how tough it is to get it
back after it is lost whether that be through a loss or a break in
action (bye). But check this out:
Since the NFL playoffs expanded to 12
teams in 1990 with the #1 and #2 seeds in each conference owning a
first round bye there have been 23 times where a #1 or #2 seed has
LOST their final regular season game (more often than not resting
starters and tanking) and then had their bye. But unbelievably only 3
of those 23 #1 or #2 seeds that lost their final regular season game
went on to win the Super Bowl!!!! 3 out of 23 in 19 years! I think
that speaks volumes as to how big of a factor momentum is in this
game and just how utterly STUPID it is to rest starters and tank your
final regular season game if you have a bye after that, effectively
killing any momentum.
The 3 winners?
1999 Rams
1994 49ers
1991 Redskins
It's interesting to note that it has
not happened in 10 years and two of the wins came back in an age
where power teams ruled and a wild card or lower seed making noise
was almost an afterthought.
Look what has happened just since 2002
(when the NFL expanded to 8 division winners and only 4 wild cards
got in):
Since 2002 there have been 12 #1 or #2
seeds that have lost their final regular season game. They are 0 for
12 in Super Bowl wins. Half of them (6) have gone down on their home
field in their first game. 3 more have gone down on their home field
in the conference finals, and of just the 3 teams to make it to the
Super Bowl all 3 have gone down in the big game. Those 12 teams
combined to go an ugly 7-14 ATS and suffered many SU losses as
favorites.
I guess the message is here if the
Colts, Chargers, Saints, or Vikings/Eagles (this year's potential #1
and #2 seeds) decide to tank Week 17 then it is just about the
equivalent to suicide as far as their Super Bowl hopes go. I'm not
saying they won't win the big game if they lose in Week 17 but holy
shit, history certainly says their chances are slim at best!
We've all heard or know how big
momentum is in the game of football and how tough it is to get it
back after it is lost whether that be through a loss or a break in
action (bye). But check this out:
Since the NFL playoffs expanded to 12
teams in 1990 with the #1 and #2 seeds in each conference owning a
first round bye there have been 23 times where a #1 or #2 seed has
LOST their final regular season game (more often than not resting
starters and tanking) and then had their bye. But unbelievably only 3
of those 23 #1 or #2 seeds that lost their final regular season game
went on to win the Super Bowl!!!! 3 out of 23 in 19 years! I think
that speaks volumes as to how big of a factor momentum is in this
game and just how utterly STUPID it is to rest starters and tank your
final regular season game if you have a bye after that, effectively
killing any momentum.
The 3 winners?
1999 Rams
1994 49ers
1991 Redskins
It's interesting to note that it has
not happened in 10 years and two of the wins came back in an age
where power teams ruled and a wild card or lower seed making noise
was almost an afterthought.
Look what has happened just since 2002
(when the NFL expanded to 8 division winners and only 4 wild cards
got in):
Since 2002 there have been 12 #1 or #2
seeds that have lost their final regular season game. They are 0 for
12 in Super Bowl wins. Half of them (6) have gone down on their home
field in their first game. 3 more have gone down on their home field
in the conference finals, and of just the 3 teams to make it to the
Super Bowl all 3 have gone down in the big game. Those 12 teams
combined to go an ugly 7-14 ATS and suffered many SU losses as
favorites.
I guess the message is here if the
Colts, Chargers, Saints, or Vikings/Eagles (this year's potential #1
and #2 seeds) decide to tank Week 17 then it is just about the
equivalent to suicide as far as their Super Bowl hopes go. I'm not
saying they won't win the big game if they lose in Week 17 but holy
shit, history certainly says their chances are slim at best!
Last year posted: 74-53 (58.2%)
Sitting here half drunk and decided to punch in some of the plays I was
looking at for Week 1 so I figured I might as well post them too. Plus,
I'm a degen and football is cool.
Dallas -3
Seattle -7
Arizona -6.5
Washington/NY Giants UNDER 39
Square looking plays for the most part early but that's why I'm on em early as I think these lines probably won't get any better for me and there's a good possibility they get worse. Other Week 1 plays I'll probably be on where I should get better or equal lines than what is currently available: Titans, Browns, Packers.
Football, I sport I can bet on and make money on and actually watch without wanting to shoot myself unlike, you know, baseball.
GL
One of the interesting things about Football is just how big of an
effect Turnovers have on the game, especially at the professional
level. We've all seen the stats: "If a team has a +3 turnover margin in
a game they win the game 90+% of the time", etc. But just how big of an
effect do Turnovers have on a season, how many games is a large
deviation from the mean (+ or -) in the turnover department worth?
I
say turnovers are a variable because they really can't be controlled.
It is true that good defenses force them and good offenses don't give
them up but that margin doesn't really count for a whole lot when you
consider the majority of turnovers happen to be "right place right
time". Think about it, how many interceptions are the result of tipped
balls just happening to land in the right hands? And how many times
does a rolling fumble happen to roll a defensive players way when it
could have easily bounced the other way?
The mean # for turnover
margin for a team in a season is 0. Anything other than that is a
deviation and IMO anything + or -10 is a significant deviation that I
would classify as an anomaly. If a team has for instance a -15 turnover
ratio in one season that probability is extremely high that in the
following season their turnover margin will be significantly greater as
it "regresses to the mean" of 0. Regression to the mean is a key
element of statistical analysis that is often overlooked in sports
betting but many astute bettors know this well, and it applies in
football with Turnovers.
Keep in mind this is a relatively small
sample size (6 seasons) but take a look at some turnover margin
anomalies from the last 6 years and how each team fared win/loss wise
the following season:
I classified an anamoly as a turnover margin in a full season of +10 or greater and -10 or greater.
Teams
with a +10 or greater turnover margin could be classified as somewhat
"lucky" as they have gotten significantly more turnovers in their favor
than what is expected. So a regression the following season should be
expected right?
For the last 6 seasons teams that have a +10
or greater turnover margin have seen their win totals in the following
season after the +10 or greater year drop by an average of -2.94 wins, that's 3 wins!
Mind you the sample size is not the greatest at 36 teams over the 6
years but IMO is still statistically significant. Also significant is
that 81% of those 36 teams saw a drop in their win totals, 4 stayed the
same and just 3 (8%) increased all contributing to the average 3 win
drop off. 3 wins less is a lot in a league with just 16 games.
Although
the numbers aren't as large for teams that "should" be improved based
on regression to the mean but they too are significant. Of the 35 teams
the last 6 years that have had a turnover ratio of -10 or more for a
full season they combined to average +2.2 more wins in the following season. With about 70% of the teams winning more games.
What
does it all mean? Probably not a hell of a lot betting wise but it does
show how some years teams can be "lucky' or "unlucky" based on how the
ball bounces and are more likely than not to regress (either + or -)
the following year.
In the 2008 season the following is a list
of teams that had turnover ratios of +10 or greater and -10 or greater
(in other words lucky and unlucky teams):
Miami +17
Tennessee +14
Baltimore +13
Houston -10
Dallas -11
Denver -17
San Francisco -17
Not
surprisingly Miami, Baltimore and Tennessee all had great years last
season with their high turnover ratios. However what is surprising, to
me at least, is that despite their bad turnover ratios, Houston,
Dallas, Denver and San Francisco really weren't all that brutal in the
win/loss column with records of 8-8, 9-7, 8-8, and 7-9 respectively. If
the +2.2 ratio from above is factored in these could have been playoff
teams last season had they had a few bounces go the other way and near
normal turnover margins or "better luck".
Unfortunately the
Win Total futures for this coming season for Baltimore, Miami, and
Tennessee seem to already have their predicted "regression to the mean"
in turnovers already factored into the lines as Miami and Tennessee's
totals are a full 4 wins less than what they finished last year with
and Baltimore's is 2.5 less. I've already seen people asking why the
totals are so low on these teams, and to that I saw, BE VERY CAREFUL
betting Miami, Baltimore or Tennessee OVER season wins for 2009 as
recent stats suggest 
.
However,
they don't seem to be factored in with the teams that should be better
next year. Houston won 8 games last year, their win total is set at 8.5
with + juice. Dallas won 9, win total at 9. Denver won 8, win total at
7, and San Fran won 7, win total at 7. There could be some hidden value
on the OVER Season Wins with these 4 teams.