|
|
#222
11-29-2006, 02:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Icy Pots!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] my point isn't to rag on the Eagles - my point is just that DVOA can spit out some really weird things. I think the bookies do a much better job of telling you who the better team is than DVOA does. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know, the bookie's job is to make lines that are as +EV as possible. I think this is usually pretty close to the true spread, otherwise they'd get heavy action on the sharp side of the spread that would counteract their gains from the sheep betting on the wrong side. I'm talking out of my ass though, I don't know much about sports betting... yet. [/ QUOTE ] In NFL Football regular season games, the closing lines are generally very sharp. I like DVOA, but I trust the lines so much more for predictive value, especially on a game by game basis, for obvious reasons. 
|
|
#223
11-29-2006, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Icy Pots!
The lines are based on the general public. The general public is stupid.
[ QUOTE ] When the Falcons hosted the Browns two weeks ago, the opening Vegas line listed the Falcons as 9.5-point favorites. The severe spread didn’t dissuade gamblers; the website Gambling911.com revealed the day before the game that about 85 percent of bettors were laying the points and taking the Falcons. Vegas responded to the one-sided action by lowering the line to eight. Yes, dear friends, that’s exactly backwards: bookmakers want to even out the action on a game so they can make money on the juice, so normally they would raise the line to scare away Falcons supporters. By going the other way, handicappers indicated that they knew something the betting population didn’t. “Bookmakers have a strong opinion here,” according to the wagering site. In other words, they weren’t worried about the Falcons action, because they knew they wouldn’t cover. Maybe the bookies read Football Outsiders, where the Falcons were ranked 18th and the Browns 24th in DVOA before the game, too narrow a difference to warrant a 10-point spread. More likely, they have their own statistical methods that arrive at many of the same conclusions we do. Either way, the final score was Browns 17, Falcons 14. It was the second straight Falcons loss to one of the league’s cellar dwellers. The playoff bandwagon promptly rolled into a ditch. Just remember: the house never loses. [/ QUOTE ] Link
|
|
#224
11-29-2006, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Icy Pots!
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I should just email this to them, but I'd like to see statistics for various formations(I-Form Weak FB, Pro Slot 3WR, etc) and maybe even defensive calls(like 4-3 zone blitz, etc). [/ QUOTE ] I'd like to see that too. I'm not sure if it's in the game charting project; it might be.
|
|
#225
11-29-2006, 02:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Icy Pots!
[ QUOTE ]
They are doing some stuff with other analysts, mostly the game charting project. Some reall, really cool stats come out of that. The problem is that it takes a long time to compile the data, so it's never up to date. [/ QUOTE ] I haven't heard about that. What does it involve? I guess my point about sharing data is less about cooperation and more about the positive effect of having a lot of different people approaching the same questions, bringing different backgrounds, ideas, and skill sets to the table to assess and critique each others work. Its just a tough situation, because they have a very reasonable interest in keeping that data proprietary, since it is a business after all. But I think that if they made the data public, you would see a lot of very useful and very interesting alternative models and perspectives about how to aggregate all that data into a useful indicator for judging a team or player. And, on the whole, this would advance knowledge about football a huge amount.
|
|
#226
11-29-2006, 02:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Icy Pots!
[ QUOTE ]
The lines are based on the general public. The general public is stupid. [/ QUOTE ] True but the books have to balance this against the money from the sharps. They can't leave too many fat curveballs out there or they'll get nailed. That's why the NO @ Pitt line and the Indy @ Dallas line shifted towards Pitt and Dallas even though the public heavily favored the flashy away teams who were heavily outperforming their pythagoreans over the inconsistent home teams who were underperforming theirs.
|
|
#227
11-29-2006, 02:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Icy Pots!
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't heard about that. What does it involve? [/ QUOTE ] It basically breaks down each play and tracks who covers who, who misses/makes tackles, yards after contact, yards after the catch, etc. I'm not sure if they do it by hand watching the film or what. But it tracks a ton of stuff that is missed in the normal play-by-play. A lot of interesting things come out of it. For example, most teams don't use their #1 corner on the #1 WR. There are exceptions (Detroit's Dre Bly covers the #1 almost every play), but for the most part the offense tries to get a favorable matchup for their #1 and the defense doesn't really respond to that by shifting.
|
|
#228
11-29-2006, 03:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Icy Pots!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I haven't heard about that. What does it involve? [/ QUOTE ] It basically breaks down each play and tracks who covers who, who misses/makes tackles, yards after contact, yards after the catch, etc. I'm not sure if they do it by hand watching the film or what. But it tracks a ton of stuff that is missed in the normal play-by-play. A lot of interesting things come out of it. For example, most teams don't use their #1 corner on the #1 WR. There are exceptions (Detroit's Dre Bly covers the #1 almost every play), but for the most part the offense tries to get a favorable matchup for their #1 and the defense doesn't really respond to that by shifting. [/ QUOTE ] That sounds really interesting. Are the findings published on the site? I have never looked around too deep over there, but haven't seen anything like this.
|
|
#229
11-29-2006, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Icy Pots!
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of interesting things come out of it. For example, most teams don't use their #1 corner on the #1 WR. There are exceptions (Detroit's Dre Bly covers the #1 almost every play), but for the most part the offense tries to get a favorable matchup for their #1 and the defense doesn't really respond to that by shifting. [/ QUOTE ] Hmm, is that because it's too complicated for the cbs to learn both weak and strong assignments on every play? I always line up CB #1 on WR #1 in Front Office Football, but I don't have the auxiliary concerns.
|
|
#230
11-29-2006, 03:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Icy Pots!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A lot of interesting things come out of it. For example, most teams don't use their #1 corner on the #1 WR. There are exceptions (Detroit's Dre Bly covers the #1 almost every play), but for the most part the offense tries to get a favorable matchup for their #1 and the defense doesn't really respond to that by shifting. [/ QUOTE ] Hmm, is that because it's too complicated for the cbs to learn both weak and strong assignments on every play? I always line up CB #1 on WR #1 in Front Office Football, but I don't have the auxiliary concerns. [/ QUOTE ] I think its because the defense is essentially set up when the offense breaks the huddle. An offense could easily take advantage of cornerbacks running accross the field before every play by constantly switch recievers and running to the line with quick snaps.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
