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.
It's a bit more of a longshot than last
season but I think we could see another Rockies push and just maybe
to the playoffs?
With the glut of good teams in the East
and Central divisions I doubt that the Rockies could get the wildcard
so they would have to go through the NL West.
At this time last season the Rockies
were 56-53 and 3.5 games back of the wildcard but had to jump over 5
other teams. This year in order to win the NL West they will have to
jump over just 2 teams but this season they are 3.5 games farther out
as they are currently 7 games behind the D-Backs with a record of
51-62. From this point on last season the Rockies went 33-20 (.623
win%) down the stretch to get into the tiebreaker game. So why do I
think the Rockies can make a legitimate playoff push, you ask? Well
it's simple, it all has to do with the schedule and health.
The Rockies remaining schedule is a
joke. First of all they play 56% of their remaining games at home
which is a big boost as they are 31-22 at home this season. Secondly
of their remaining 49 games they play a whooping 25 (51%!) of them
against easily the 3 worst teams in the NL in San Diego, San
Francisco and Washington. An important factor with all those teams is
that they cannot score to save their lives right now it will be a big
struggle against the raking Rockies (which i'll get to shortly). The
Rockies also have a combined 16 games remaining against Arizona and
the Dodgers, the two teams the Rockies are chasing in the NL West so
with wins against these teams they can make up lots of ground quite
quickly. It's also worth noting that of those 16 games against the
D-backs and Dodgers, the Rockies will be the home team in 9 of them.
Outside of those 16 games with the D-Backs and Dodgers, the Rocks
don't play a single game against anybody that is even close to .500.
Their remaining games are against the Braves, Reds and Astros.
The Rockies are finally close to full
health. They have been banged up all season and now with their ace
Jeff Francis coming back they are now just a Todd Helton away from
being last years team.......except they're better. This lineup is
fully healthy and Helton's replacements (Stewart/Baker) I think are
actually better hitters. Holliday is raking like a machine and
Tulowitki is finally healthy and is hitting over .400 since his
return. Since the return of the healthy lineup the Rockies have
scored 5 or more runs in 16 of their 17 games since the All Star
break and 10 of those games have been on the road. When you look at
their pitching, sure the middle of the pen is shaky but the end is
good and a front 3 of Ubaldo/Cook/Francis looks pretty good. Ubaldo
is living up to the hype, Cook has been great this year and the ace
Francis i retuning (he gave up 1 run in 15 innings in rehab starts in
the minors). Even Glendon Rusch is chugging out quality starts. Take
this decent starting pitching and combine it with the offense and you
get a recipe for success.
Let's look back at last season for a
minute. The Rockies had a great run in the 2nd half last
year and from this date on last season they went 33-20 (.623 win%) to
close out the year. Most of that was due to their offense that
averaged 5.96 runs/game while the pitching was good not great giving
up 4.37 runs/game. I believe the Rockies offense will be very similar
to the one that finished last season and with 3 solid starters I
think the pitching will actually be better. Another thing to remember
is that at this point last season the Rockies were 12-8 since the All
Star break averaging 5.15 runs/game while giving up 3.7 runs/game. So
far this season since the All Star break the Rockies are 12-5
averaging 6.12 runs/game while giving up 3.8 runs/game, so they are
actually already playing better ball than they were at this point
last year.
One other thing to remember is that
they finished last season 33-20 (.623 win%). Given the ease of the
schedule they have to finish last season let's say they win .625% of
their remaining games pretty much like last year. That would have
them going 31-18 to finish and have them with a record of 82-80 at
the end of the season. Now that may not look sexy but remember that
the Dodgers and D-Backs are only on pace to finish 82-80 and 83-79
respectively despite playing tougher schedules (the Dodgers have lots
of road games left too) that's very close to what the Rocks might
finish with. Given the ease of the Rockies schedule and the way the
pitching and hitting could come together, I wouldn't be shocked if
the Rockies won more than .625% of their remaining games.
In Summary: Well the reason I wrote
that obscene amount above is that I believe that the Colorado Rockies
are going to make a playoff push down the stretch. The stars are all
aligning: Joke of a schedule, hitters are healthy and raking and they
have some good pitchers, also the teams they are chasing are
mediocre. They have a long way to go but I don't think it's out of
the question, which is what's important pertaining to wagering. I've
only looked at a few sites but I'm seeing the Rockies anywhere
between 8-1 to 10-1 to win the NL West, and that I believe given the
circumstances is VALUE! The whole reason for writing this was because
I believe we have a team here that has great value on it and is in a
great situation that could make a serious run at winning a weak
division. Of course the odds say they don't and they might not even
make a run making me look like a total baffoon. Last season the Rocks
went all the way to the World Series riding their 2nd half
run. This season the odds of them doing that are somewhere are 35-1
to 50-1. I'm not saying they will do that at all but it could happen
IF they make the playoffs and at these prices to win the NL West I
think I'll take a shot.
Watch out for the Rockies.