If you've taken a beating in weeks 6-8, don't fear:

For a lot of dog bettors, sharp players, or guys who get caught in a pattern, you may have had a bad few weeks. Why? Well, because the NFL season typically goes in ebb and flow. There are definite periods of 3-4 weeks when dogs just seem to kick ass. Then, everyone catches up w/ the high number of dogs, and it seems favs start to do better. It's the linesmaker's way of keeping you on your toes, but if you're not careful, and they hope you are not, keeping your money in their pockets.

First, let's take a look at how things have gone (on avg) the past 5 seasons and how things have gone thus far this season, and you'll get an idea of what I mean. Note that the weekly averages really vary from one year to the next, and we will get into that more later...



Typically, and by that I mean on average, not every single season, dogs start out better than they do in the 2nd half of the season. And we saw that this year too. In fact, it was an extreme in weeks 2-5. Dogs were producing very well. So what happened?

Well, perhaps you, like myself and others, started thinking that dogs would continue to bark just as much as they have been early on. And what happens? They lost their bite. Dogs have hit at much lower % than they do on average. I don't think its a coincidence either. These linesmakers are brilliant guys. They are smarter than any of us. You have the psychology of guys taking a few favs in the early weeks that lose, and the player starts to doubt his plays, and goes for a dog when he shouldn't, because his dogs have been coming through, or his favs were losing to dogs.

Now, does this happen every year?

You may be suprised, but the answer is: YES.

Take a look at all data from 2001 thru 2007. What I did was I took the weekly ATS for dogs, and I found the "periods" or groups of weeks where dogs or favs did very well for a couple of weeks in a row, and then it reversed for a few weeks. And I grouped them by these "periods".



A few things I want to show you:

1. Note that dogs don't always start off well. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

2. Note that starting in week 6 and ending in week 8 or 9, we typically have a "period" of change that is vastly different from the prior few weeks. Sometimes dogs do better, but in most cases, dogs have done much worse during this period of time.

3. Look at this more by viewing the column to the right. This is a calculation of the % change from the period directly before weeks 6-8 (or 9) to that of weeks 6-8/9. The only season there was not a strong pronouncement was in 2004.

4. Look at the dropoff after the 6-8 week "period". Typically if weeks 6-8 are great, as in 2001 and 2006, the dogs don't do as well in the next "period". But they didn't do terrible, either. But when the dogs have done poor in the "period" around weeks 6-8, or dropped off from what they started the season out at, they will typically rebound in the following "period". 2003 is the most similar season to this one, where dogs only went 43% for the "period" of weeks 6-8 (42% this season). They then rebounded back to 56%. Every season where dogs did worse in weeks 6-8/9, they improved the following "period".

5. The only exception was that terrible year for dog players in 2005, where favs covered more than any time in recent memory.

So, what can we expect?

Well just because I tell you I think that over the next 3 or 4 weeks, I think dogs will do better, does not mean you'll win money. Firstly, they probably won't be hitting much better than they did to start the season, and secondly, you still have to play the right sides.

But, we should find out over the next couple of weeks if a dog bettor's season will start to improve. My money says it will, and I'll continue to play my dogs (and a few select favs when I like one). I never blindly play a dog because he's a dog, but it definitely factors in.

Last year, dogs started out at only 47% and then in the "period" of weeks 6-8, jumped to 63%. The reverse of this year.

So, to all you who have had a down few weeks, this usually happens each year. It will vary between which side is getting the most play, but I can tell you from looking at the numbers, we definitely went through a transition again this season during the "period" or weeks 6-8. Will it last another week before we see a change? Perhaps. But sometime during weeks 10-11, we should see a decent stretch for those sharp dog bettors. That is, if we can learn anything from the past.

Don't get discouraged, better days lie ahead.

Teasing across Zero, other teaser myths, and High Percentage Teases

First, I encourage you to read my predecessor article on teasers:

http://sharpfootballanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/09/truth-about-teasers-must-read-for-those.html

I decided to do a closer look at each and every pointspread to see when teasing is "typically" of value and when it is not. If you understand that you must hit 52.37% of your plays at -110 juice, you should also understand that if you want to win playing 2 team, 6 point teasers, each leg should have better than 73.1% chance of hitting. On a 3 team, 10 point teaser, each leg should have better than 81.1% chance of winning. And on a 4 team, 13 point teaser, each leg should have better than 85.5% chance of winning.

So those are what we are looking for when we target teasers. Of course, selecting games in a teaser is the same as selecting them in straight wagers. You have to cap the game and see when a team has good value. The hard part about teasers is the fact that if you misread one game, or get "unlucky" in 1 game, the whole teaser is lost. Whereas on a straight play, you only lose 1 play. Therefore, treat a "whole teaser" like a single play. Don't wager more than you normally would because you think "this has to hit". And don't let 1 teaser loss ruin your weekend, even if it is because you lost 1 game out of 4 in a 4 team teaser. You should have a couple other straight plays to get you where you need to be, and remember: everyone has a down weekend now and then. Lastly, know that teasers are jackpots for sportsbooks, because many "average joes" play them and lose. So if you can actually win consistently on teasers, consider yourself in lucky company.

Now, if that didn't dissuade you from wanting to play teasers, here we go. These numbers are drawn from a database dating back to 2000. (I could go farther back, but I wanted to look at the most recent 6 seasons.)

Teasing the Favorite



The Myth of Teasing across Zero

That's the first thing that jumps out at us when we look at this. The plays highlighted in the yellow color are those where the teased line has crossed zero. The plays in red are those that are above our target percentages. Remember, no teaser has a 52.4% target, 6 point, 10 point and 13 point teasers have their own targets. Therefore, I have a column in each category which shows the % over the target. If it's positive, that play is a solid one that, when paired w/ other positive plays, could help produce a winning teaser.

If negative, you're looking at a poor tease possibility. For instance, look at teasing from -11.5 or -12 down to -5.5 or -6. That teaser won only 47% of the time, which is 26% less than you need to actually earn money as a leg of a 6 point teaser.

The best 6 point teaser is teasing RIGHT ACROSS ZERO with a -3.5 or -4 point favorite and making that team a +2 or +2.5 point dog. It's hit 10% more than taking a -2.5 or -3 point favorite and making them a +3 or +3.5 point dog. Typically, you would think "why would I want to tease to +2.5? Wouldn't I want to make sure it was at +3? And you would think so, but based on historical lines, you would be wrong.

Also, look at teasing teams that are -3.5 or -4 in a 6 point, 10 point, or 13 point teaser. Either way, they are one of the best teams to put into any teaser.

Teasing the Underdog



As you can see and as you should know, you don't cross zero teasing a dog. But, as described in the prior article (linked at the top) teasing dogs is far less profitable than teasing favs. Look at the overall odds of hitting straight wagers w/ dogs. There's only 3 out of 13 that hit less than 50%. And the majority are hitting over that 52.4% mark.

Teasing them, on the other hand, yields far less "red" selections above our target levels.

I'll let you take what ever else you want to from this one.

Summary of Top Teasers

The following are summary tables which are quick references from the above tables, highlighting top teaser candidates.

Top 6 Point Candidates



Top 10 Point Candidates



Top 13 Point Candidates



Summary Points

I hope this gives you a good overview as to which spreads are more likely to produce winning plays. However, this does not mean these hit 100%. Even the best are hitting at a rate where you need to also employ some solid capping skills and as always, have a bit of luck on your side. The goal, however, is to equip you with all of these tools, so that you can combine your capping w/ solid ATS trends by pointspread. Hopefully the combination will give you added advantage, and in some cases, steer you away from a potential negative play. More could be done, such as looking at home field vs road, or adding total information to the queries. But this is a good middle ground and hopefully you will find some useful information that leads to winning plays. Good luck.

Perception of Home Field Advantage vs. ATS results

Like it or not, for the most part, the "dumb betting public" views each team based on what they have seen from them lately, and their W/L record. The public has also been influenced by ESPN and other media to believe that certain teams are simply better at home or on the road.

Think of what you have heard... how hard it is to play at Mile High Stadium in Denver. How intimidating it is for teams to travel and play in the Black Hole out in Oakland. Other places that seem to hold a great home field advantage, such as the noise from the "12th man" in Quest Field in Seattle. The heat down in Miami in September/early October. What about KC, the frozen tundra of Lambeau, or the domes in NO, ATL, STL, Min, Det?

Well, I hope this article will shed some light as to which teams really do have a home field advantage, and which really do not. Therein, which teams win at home, and which teams do not. Even more important, which teams COVER at home and which do not.

And then we'll take it even further, and examine which teams have sustained success on the road, vs. those teams who can't quite cut it in games away from home.

In each scenario, I looked at how a team has done the last 5 years, and then also broke out this current year. Although this current year is young and less than halfway through, it is still interesting to see if a certain team has reversed its fortunes or has continued along the same path.

Home Teams ATS

http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/6/10/17/f_HomeTeamsATm_2c54dda.png

The Ravens have been solid at home ATS, but somewhat suprising that they are tops in the NFL over this 5 year span. Not really known for a huge home field advantage compared to some other clubs. You do have a couple Florida teams up there in Jac and TB, but the rest are pretty much the tops in the NFL in terms of solid teams the last few years: NE, Pit... KC is known for its home field advantage and it shows based on their ATS at home. Dal, though not near as dominant in the NFC the last few years (the past couple aside) still has covered well at home.

What's most interesting is the teams that are poor. NO, ATL and Oak are at the bottom. 2 dome teams and the Black Hole. Perhaps too much emphasis has been made in the line on their home field advantage, or at least in the public's mind, and really there is not much advantage for those teams at home. Some good teams over the last few years like Car, NYG and Cin also don't show up as much at home. But the biggest suprise is Denver. I'll get into them more after I show the next chart.

This is the same chart from above, but sorted by the column "SU-ATS". Basically, it shows which teams UNDERPERFORMED at home ATS but still managed good SU records. And similarly, which teams are known for losing at home, yet have solid ATS records.

http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/6/10/17/f_OvervaluedHm_49749da.png

As you can see from this chart, Den has the largest discrepancy in the NFL in terms of home games won vs. home games covered in the NFL. That could be in part because since 2002, they have only been home dogs one time, this weekend to Pittsburgh! I couldn't believe it at first, but it is true. They have never been home dogs since their 2002 Week 1 matchup w/ the Rams.

At any rate, their "home field" advantage has been played up far to much in the media and has caused bettors to lose out on $ far to long now. Let's look at the next offender (you have to skip Ind, KC, NE and Pit, because they are only up so high since they have such a large SU win %. They still cover 50% or much better ATS at home.)

Seattle, GB and St. Louis. 3 teams that have a supposed great home field advantage. While their SU records have been great, they don't get the cover in most cases. Lastly is Miami. Teams have to fly down to the tip of the Country in the heat to play them, but Miami just does not get the covers at home like you would think, whereas some other Florida teams do. In fact, even looking at the limited data from this season, you'll find that the only team above .500 ATS at home from this group in red has been GB.

Moving from the bad to the good, at the bottom are teams who may not win many home games, but have done very well in covering the past 5 years. And in fact, look over to 2007 and you'll see that none of these teams are below .500. Many have continued that stellar ATS at home this year.

With that look at how teams have done at home, let's move along to teams that are great or terrible on the road.

Road Teams ATS

http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/6/10/17/f_RoadTeamsATm_d33c055.png

It should be to no one's suprise that NE has been at the top of the league in road covers. 69% though is a huge number above and beyond the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place clubs. What is equally suprising, after studying the poor home teams, is the number of teams "in the red" who were bad at home covers are "in the green" with great road covers. The list includes Car, NO, ATL and Cin. Even GB, which was good at winning home games but poor at covering, is "in the green". It should be no suprise that 2 of the powerhouses in the AFC join NE "in the green": Indy and SD.

Let's look at the poor teams on the road. Try considering the entire NFC West as teams that don't cover well on the road. Ari, STL, ST, and Sea's right there too at 44%. The Raiders have just been bad, they can't get it done at home or on the road. Then a couple teams who play in extreme environments: Chi and TB. Chi plays a lot of road games in domes, as does TB, so that could factor in.

Getting back to good teams to bet on, this next chart is the same as the road teams chart, but it is sorted by "SU-ATS". This will show us teams on the road who win a lot but don't cover, and likewise, those that lose a lot but do cover.

http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/6/10/17/f_Undervaluedm_24f354e.png

First, the teams that are at the top, showing they "win a lot but don't cover" is not very meaningfull. Most of these teams landed here simply because they won so many SU that even if they have just above a .500 ATS on the road, it's not as great as their SU win %. But at the top, you find perhaps the top 4 teams since 2002 in the NFL. From the AFC you have Indy, NE and Pit. And from the NFC: Philly.

Moving down to numbers we can use: teams in the green don't win at a high rate on the road, but do bring a game usually, and pull off a suprising % of covers than you may expect. Det only has won 16% of its road games, but covered 44% of them. Houston, Cleveland, Buffalo are 3 other relatively "poor" teams who have done better than average on the road. Same w/ Washington and Cincy.

So there you have it. A look at which teams really do have a home field advantage, and which do not. And a look at which teams have got the job done on the road for bettors, even if they didn't win SU. These are the type of charts I print and refer to each and every week as I see the lines spit out from Vegas, and hear the talking heads blabbing about "poor weak Cleveland heading into the menacing Black Hole", or Denver's Mile High Stadium, or the "12th man" in Seattle.

You can keep talking up the hype, ESPN, trying to generate ratings. I'll keep my mouth shut and keep on winning.

Best Bets on Dogs, Stray from these Favs

Last year, as the year progressed, you can tell which teams the public "buys into". And just as easily, you can tell which teams the public just does not understand.

"Why do they keep losing, they are stacked w/ talent and coaching?"
or
"I can't believe this team keeps covering - they should get blown out. They're killing me!"

And yet game after game, these teams continue to be undervalued or overvalued. We can learn from last year, but once again, you still have to look at this years teams/stats/results and not just bet on a team who was great as a Dog ATS last season for no other reason but that one.

Getting started, let's look at the Favorites:

The Broncos were the worst offender on this list. They were made favorites in 13 of their 16 games, and failed to cover in 10 of the 13 games. However, they were able to win 8 of those games. We saw a repeat of this AGAIN this season in week 1, where they lost as favorites in Buffalo. Not much has changed.

A close second offender were the Jags. They failed to cover in 7 of the 10 games they were favorites. The even bigger problem - they failed to win those games. If they didn't cover, they didn't win. And if they won, they would cover. We saw a repeat of this AGAIN this season in week 1, where they lost outright to the Titans. Not much has changed.

The Broncos in particular were one of those teams the public just did not get. Vegas continued to make money by making Denver the favorite, and the public continued to wager on them.

The teams in red are those favorites who would have lost you money if you took them and laid the points on every game they were favored.

On the other hand, the Jets were kind to bettors. They went 5-1 as favorites ATS (and of course won them all, as they were favored).

So far this season, of the teams who would have won you money last year, the Chargers, Bengals, Steelers and Pats were all favored in week 1. And they all covered. Not much has changed. But be careful, none of those teams had "way above avg" ATS ratings, but they were better than average.

The Jets far and away would be the team that got the job done last year. They are another example of a team the public did not get. The public would take the dog, and the Jets would continue to cover.... the opponents in these games were among the NFL's lowliest - Mia, Det, Hou, GB, Buf, Oak. But even though the oddsmakers kept the lines below -5 for the Jets (except Oak), the easy money was not so easy to the public, and those who took the Jets and laid points walked away happy.



Next, the Underdogs:

There were some underdogs who did absolutely terrible ATS last year. But they kept failing to cover the spread, and you made out if you bet against them. There were 4 teams that were underdogs in 14 of their 16 games. These teams were viewed as terrible by the avg bettor. They were:

Oak, GB, Det and Ten.

How do you think those teams did SU? Not as bad as you may think - 20-36.

What about ATS? How about 29-26. That's right, they actually had a winning record ATS.

The reason? Part of it has to do with the fact that the public just does not understand most underdogs. Another part was the Titans. These guys went 11-3 ATS despite being constantly made the underdogs. And worse than that?

Of those 11 wins, they only lost the game SU 3 times. That means they covered as dogs in 79% of their games, and won SU in their games as dogs 57%.

Even more impressive, since Vince Young started for them (which was week 5, I believe - correct me if I'm wrong), Ten has covered in 10 of the 11 games they were dogs. That's 91%. And won 8 of the 10 SU. For 8 straight weeks last season (weeks 9-16) they were dogs. Starting in week 10, they covered every single game, and starting week 11 (that's 6 straight) they won outright as dogs.

Looking at week 1 of this season, the Titans were dogs to the Jags, and the Titans covered and won SU as well. Not much has changed.

Other teams that were particularly impressive were the Saints and the Bills. Don't expect the public to sleep on the Saints this year, but they may on the Bills. While covering the spread in 8 of their 11 games as dogs, they actually lost 7 of them. So careful on ML-ing the Bills, but taking the points may not be too bad an investment in the right situation.

In the Bills first game of this season, they covered as dogs but lost SU to the Broncos. Not much has changed.

Looking at the other side, the teams to be extra cautious is the Redskins. By far the worst record ATS as dogs, the Skins went 4-9 ATS.

The truth about Teasers. A must read for those who play them or who refuse to do so.

The next in my background articles about sports betting, I’m tackling the topic of teasers. I have seen many this week discuss going the route of teasers. Teasing is a way for a player to take the fav but give fewer points (or eventually receive them) and/or to take the dog and get more points. The catch is, instead having to win only 1 game in a regular ATS bet, you have to win more:

2 games in a standard 6 point teaser
3 games in a 10 point teaser
4 games in a 13 point “super” teaser

I’ve analyzed teasers from 2000 onwards. That gives us 7 full seasons of data. I looked at teasing from two vantage points: The first is teasing the Underdog, the second is teasing the Favorite.

The point of this article is to get actual information on historical trends to help predict future results. The main point is to show you which key numbers are the most key to cross in a teaser, and which teasers win most often and which do not.

The other thing you should know is that I have calculated my %s of winning a teaser based on picking 2 teams from that same range in the line. For instance, when calculating odds of winning a teaser for underdogs of +0.5 to +3 in a 6 point teaser, I found out the odds of an underdog who was +0.5 to +3 getting 6 additional points, and how they would have done ATS. In this case, the odds were that you would hit 73% of the games in that situation. But those are not the odds to win the teaser, as you have to hit 2 games to win the teaser.

So for a 2 game teaser, you multiply the odds together. For purposes of my comparative analysis, I multiplied 73% x 73%. Which gives you 54%. So if you teased 2 teams together in a 6 point teaser, and both were between +0.5 and +3, you would have a 54% chance of winning.

What I didn’t calculate was the chance of winning a teaser if you teased 2 teams by 6 points, but the first was between +0.5 and +3, and the second was between +6.5 and +10. I calculated the individual chances, but not the combination of the two. I will post a table which will allow you to do the math yourself, all that is required is to multiply the %s together.

First, a little background on needed % of wins to make money. I’ve taken the following paragraph from a respected site:

It has been well documented that a monkey flipping a coin can expect to hit 50% of his games. It is also understood that this same monkey needs to have a winning % greater than 52.37% to overcome the -110 juice and simply break even. Reduced juice betting drastically affects the win % by bringing this number down: -107 = 51.67%, and -105 = 51.22%.

So as you can see, you have flexibility when placing standard bets. You can place the bet when the juice is to your liking. Pinny will keep the line still but shift the juice from + juice to – juice, all in the matter of hours. You can also buy points to get yourself to certain numbers you want. Of course, it gets expensive to buy to key numbers, like 3 or 7, but to get to other numbers, it is not as expensive.

The bottom line, when placing a typical spread bet, you have flexibility. However, when placing a teaser, that flexibility goes out the window. No buying points, no selecting games based on juice. Teasers at sportsbooks will have standard juice, no matter which teams you select. 2-team, 6-point teasers will have a certain amount of juice, which will most likely be different from 3-team 10 point teasers and different from 4-team 13 point teasers.

There are many articles out there about how to tease published by different sites, and I’m not here to talk about generalities. There are many gamblers out there who say “Teasers are the Devil”, and some who like teasing. I’m not here to convince you one way or another. What I am trying to do is show you, based on historical fact, which teasing situations are most likely to win and which are most likely to lose.

With that said, on to teasing underdogs.

Teasing the Underdog

As you know from my prior posts, betting on underdogs, on average, have a better chance of winning. In fact, since 2000, Underdogs have gone 51% ATS.

Here are the results of my analysis on underdogs, first just the numbers, and then graphically. The numbers are in red if the likelihood of hitting the teaser is HIGHER than that of a single ATS bet without teasing. The cell is shaded a light yellow if the % is higher than 52.37%, and is therefore profitable at standard juice:

As you can see, teasing underdogs is typically not the way to go.

• There was only one occurrence of the % being higher than 52.37% on a underdog teaser, that being teasing dogs 6 points that are less than or equal to +3.


• Most all the other games are well below the winning % of picking a single game ATS in that same point spread range.


• As the point spreads get higher, the chances of you winning on a underdog teaser get lower.
  

Teasing the Favorite

Here are the results for teasing the favorite. As you can see, much better than underdogs, and in most cases, better than picking the favorite in a single game ATS.

• With favs of a FG or less, every tease presented better odds than picking the individual game ATS.


• The highest odds (aside from very high point spreads above 14) came when teasing the favorite by 13 points in a game where the spread is more than a FG but less than a TD.


• There are certain times when teasing a favorite is beneficial, and certain times when teasing a favorite should be avoided. These are shown in the table and graph above.

Situational Teasing

The other thing this analysis did not take in to account is the element of situational teasing. Such as when the total is high or low, or the public perception of certain teams based on their record. For instance:

As you can see, in the case where the line was very high and the total was not extremely high(<45)favs were more likely to cover in all situations, especially if teasing by 10 or 13 points.

In a similar situation, with a high line, but a higher total (>45), the underdog was more likely to cover in a 6 or 13 point teaser. Notice how the 10 point teaser did not help at all in this case.

There are likely many other situational spots where I could look up teaser information, and find high odds of winning a particular teaser based on line and tease type. However, I've already taken too much time as it is, and that will have to be done another time.

Table to perform your own Odds Calculations:

Lastly, I’ll include a table which you can use to calculate your own odds. Essentially, if you want to do a calculate your odds of winning, you take the percentage from the appropriate box for the starting line you want to use, and multiply it times the percentage for the next team in the teaser. If it’s a 2 team 6 point teaser, you multiply Team 1’s % x Team 2’s %. In a 4 team 13 point teaser, you multiply all 4 teams’s % to come up w/ your odds of winning.

From this table, you should see:

• If you want to take a 6 point teaser on a favorite, best chances of winning are if the spread is a FG or less, or if the spread is higher than a TD. Whereas the odds of success on a 13 point teaser on a favorite does not have as large a difference between original point spreads.


• When teasing an underdog, your chances are highest when you tease a small underdog. Taking large underdogs in teasers is not as wise.
  

Overall summary points:

• While many say teasers are sucker bets, that is not always the case.


• The time to take teasers are if you want to tease favorites, particularly in a 10 or 13 point teaser.


• However, in most all other cases (with a few exceptions), you have better odds of just getting individual games correct than you do of hitting a teaser.


• The exceptions are certain opening lines have better odds of hitting than others. The tables above shows these situations, and show when certain teasers (6, 10 or 13 point) are more wise to play due to their odds of hitting.


• Remember, just because a teaser has high odds historically has nothing to do with its ability to win on a certain future date. Smart and accurate capping should occur, and when certain games are determined to be high percentage plays, and the likelihood of hitting that teaser is high based on the historical data presented above, teasers are perfectly acceptable.


• In general, more people lose teasers than those who win them. And more people lose playing teasers than when they make standard ATS plays. Essentially, teasers typically produce more money for outlets than regular plays, so remember that when jumping at a “easy teaser”
  

I hope this information, while difficult to explain (and I’m sure follow along), was made easier to comprehend through the use of the graphs and charts. Good luck capping this week and the rest of this season!

The truth about extremely low or extremely high totals

The average total in the NFL is 41, and has been for some time. As we know, the public loves the overs. But how has the over/under fared over time?

I posted lessons on underdogs earlier, so here’s one on Totals.

The avg line is 41 for the NFL. 51% of the time, the final score is below the total. Not enough to make money betting on all unders. But are there situations when it’s more likely to be an under based on the opening line? Since setting the line is all about perception, what happens when a low line is released? How does the public react, and how do the games usually end?

For this study, I am only looking at opening lines, and I am looking at all games from the 2000-2001 season onward. I’ll start w/ the notion that the public loves an Over. And it’s true. Overs and Favorites, the public will eat them up.

See my prior work on underdogs, and you’ll see that betting dogs (smartly) will net you some cash, and betting unders (smartly) will do the same.

But here I’d like to share a sports wagering slogan you may have heard before: "Take the Under on a low total and the Over on a high total".

Think about that for a second. Wouldn't it be the opposite? Well, contrarian thinking goes a long way in sports betting.

Now, let’s crunch the numbers to see if it works out: Taking unders in games with a 41 point total or below: (Note – first note that these are opening lines, not closing. If snow was predicted and the line dropped from 40 down to 35, the O/U would show up based on the opening line of 40 in my calculation.)

As you can see, games where the opening number is avg (41) or right around there, between 39 and 41, you are already hitting over 52% (the magic number where you can break even despite the juice) if you take the unders. But once you get lower, between 35 and 38, you see more overs hitting. However, once you cross over into the very low totals of 31 and 32, you are hitting very high % on the unders. Everyone sees a 31 or 32 and would take the over, but that is not a sharp play.

Of course, if you look at the # of games that actually post totals that low, you’ll see that only 18 games in the last 7 years have had an opening total of 32 or below. That’s just over 2.5 per season. However, if you took the under on all those games, you would have won 67% of them, which is a solid, solid profit.

Now lets take the overs in games w/ a 42 point total or higher:

As you can see, from 42 points all the way up until 52 point totals, you have to pick your spots if you want an over, as more than half the time the game will go under. Which is why finding those unders may be easier than finding the overs. However, once you get to point totals that open at 53 or higher, you’re in a prime market for making some good $ by taking the overs.

Again, like w/ very low totals, you don’t see totals 53 or higher that much, just over 4.25 times per season. But take heed when you do see them…

Once again, the public sees an extreme number, and will generally go to the other side.

So the lessons here:

1. Opening numbers of 32 and below, don’t be scared to take the under


2. Opening numbers of 53 and higher, don’t be scared to take the over


3. In between, pick your spots. Unders hit more than overs, but don’t be scared to take either if you have done your homework.


4. Last but not least – don’t think that 35 and 36 are so low that it will go under, and don’t think that 50, 51, and 52 are so high that it will go over. Based on historical information, 35 and 36 point totals are more likely to go over than any total less than 52. Likewise, 51 and 52 are more likely to go under than any point total greater than 32. So don’t get carried away and think that “52 is high, take the over”.

Analysis of betting every dog on the ML

I was asked to take a look at how betting on every game ML would turn out. So this is what I did:

I took every game since 91. I bet $100 on the dog ML. So if the bet lost, I lost $100. If it won, I won the ML payout. I used the following payouts for MLs (the spread is on the left, the ML on the right):

1 +107
1.5 +111
2 +115
2.5 +130
3 +145
3.5 +162.5
4 +180
4.5 +195
5 +210
5.5 +225
6 +240
6.5 +265
7 +290
7.5 +305
8 +320

and so forth.

So a $100 bet on a 5 point underdog would win you $210.

Here are the results:

You will see it's not really a good way to make money, as you would be putting up $25,600 to win about $585 on avg.

However, the interesting thing is to compare 96 and 95. In both seasons, 81 ML dogs won. However in 96 you would have lost $74 and in 95 you would have won $2,811.

The reason being in 96 the avg line that ML dogs covered was 4.2. Whereas in 95, the avg line that ML dogs covered was 5.1. So even that little change in the payout per bet amounts to a $2,900 swing...

How 2006-07 compared to Past Seasons

I wanted to take a look at how this past season compared to previous seasons in terms of ATS numbers and results. The source for my data may not be the same as the source for your data (if you try to compare), as the line shifts and I don't know if you are using opening or closing lines, and what book you use.

But all my numbers are consistent w/ themselves (same source) and so the analysis should show similar results, even if you use a different source.

First I looked at the percentage at which favorites covered. Knowing the public likes taking the favorite, and knowing that you only need to hit just over 51% to win money w/ consistent betting practices (getting better juice can drop this number), I just wanted to see what years the favorites did well and what years the underdog did well.

I looked at both regular season and post season numbers.

The second thing I looked at was the number of games in which the points come into play. This is from an underdog perspective. If a favorite wins and covers, you don't have to worry about the points, you lost your bet. If an underdog wins, you don't have to worry about the points, you won your bet. The time the points come into play are those times where the favorite wins but did not cover. Then the underdog bettor won, but the points did matter.

I have heard various people claim how the points only matter in such a small % of games. So the column for "points mattered" shows the % of games where the dog lost but covered the spread (or the underdog won but failed to cover the spread).

As you can see, I only took my sample thru the 1991 season. I could have gone further back, but I felt that was a large enough sample.

At any rate, here are the numbers, and my conclusions follow:

Conclusion 1: Betting underdogs in the long run will make money.

Most bettors know this. The problem is, you aren't betting across the board, you are picking select games, so that shifts the percentages. However, looking at all 16 years, or even at the last 5, underdogs cover slightly more than favorites.

But, if you look at individual seasons, you will see how much it can shift from one season to the next. The largest shift took place this season. In 05-06, favorites covered at 58% - killing a sharp bettor and helping the public. This season, the favorites only covered 45%. That's a 13% swing!

There have been spans (from 92-97 and from 99-02) where for 4 years or more, favorites covered at less than 50%. Significantly less (47% and 46% respectively, and those numbers are significant). But the past 4 years, we have had 2 years where favorites covered more than underdogs.

This season it dropped low, to 45%. My gut feeling is we should see another season where more dogs cover, and we won't see a season like 05-06 (58% of favs covered) for quite some time.

Conclusion 2: Favorites tend to cover more in the postseason.

Of course, if you look at the last 5 years, that has not been the case. However that avg is really brought down by only 36% of the favs covering in 2003-04.

But for 11 of the 16 seasons, the fav covered more in the postseason than in each regular season. That is 69% of the seasons saw more favorites cover in the playoffs than the regular season. Another number tough to ignore. Now, by how much more did they cover?

In those 11 seasons, they covered an average of 9% more games. Which is a sizable amount.

Even if you take the average % increase using all 16 seasons (including those where the fav covered less in the postseason) you still are looking at an increase of 4%.

There was no real correlation between the regular season and the postseason.

So while this won't matter for almost another full season, remember that on average, favorites do fare better than underdogs ATS in the postseason.

Conclusion 3: The points are extremely significant.

The way I calculated how much the points mattered was:

I took the number of games won SU by the favorite and subtracted the number of games where the favorite covered the spread. So we are left with the number of games where the fav won but the underdog covered (and the points mattered). I divided that number by the total number of games played that season.

[Note: I looked at backing out those games that "pushed", but on average the "pushed" games only amounted to 0.6% of the total, so I ignored those games]

What we see is that the points matter in about 20% of all games played, and this is pretty consistent from season to season. In fact, the most it has ever mattered was 23%, and the least was 17%.

So the big overriding conclusion here is the points are huge, and don't let anyone tell you that they don't matter. Now, maybe getting into specific pointspreads, they don't matter as much.

One time the points don't really matter is if there is a home favorite of between 1 and 2.5 points. The points only mattered in 2 games out of 200, since 1995. In this situation, either take the fav and don't worry about laying the points, or take the dog SU. Because in only 1% of the games will the fav win but not cover. So if you want to look at specific situations, the points may not matter as much in those situations.

But in general, the points are a big part of gambling, and getting the most points you can get for a dog (while still having value in the juice) can affect around 20% of the number of bets you might win.

Conclusion 4: It is hard to predict how much the points will matter in the postseason.

We had 3 seasons where the points did not even matter (you could either take the fav and lay the points, or take the dog SU, there wasn't a fav who won but failed to cover).

We had almost half of the 16 seasons where the points mattered in 10% or less of the games, which is about half the amount it mattered in the regular season.

But then again, we have had those postseasons where the points mattered in 36% of the games, much higher than the amount it mattered in the regular season.

There is also no real correlation between the regular season and the postseason.

So how did 06-07 compare to the average?

We had more dogs cover in both the regular season and the postseason than average. And while the points didn't matter quite as much as average on the regular season, the points mattered a lot more in the playoffs than average.

So what to expect for next season?

At times an analysis does not really produce any incredible trends, and that is the case here. Going in, we should already know that the points matter, and we should know that dogs do better than favs on average. And that is all we really found out. The only thing I could surmise for next season is a similar number of dogs covering, as 2005-06 was really an aberration. Other than that, I'll be looking forward to another challenging year of handicapping in 2007-08.

2006 Season Recap

Made some great money in the playoffs. My complete picks were posted online, I only started this blog for the Super Bowl.

My record to close out the season was 14-3 in terms of winning/losing days. And the Superbowl was my 11th straight "Primetime" matchup in a row that I won.

I'll keep updating my systems in the offseason and look forward to another successful season in 2007.

My Super Bowl Analysis

After writing this, I realize it is much too long than it needs to be. However, I am a junkie and love running numbers and scenarios. Since I already typed it all up, I might as well post it. So there’s your warning.

Section 1: Background
Section 2: The Game
Section 3: Scenario 1 Stats
Section 4: Scenario 2 Stats
Section 5: Scenario 3 Stats
Section 6: Passer Rating
Section 7: Special Teams
Section 8: Red Zone
Section 9: O-Line/D-Line
Section 10: Conclusions
Section 11: My Pick

Section 1:

Background:

I have spent some quality time looking at all aspects of this game, and I will present the numbers to you as always: Unbiased and untarnished. My comparisons are the most fair that you will find, and you can read below to find out why.

To the guys who think stats don't matter in this big game, that think it is such a big game that you just have to make a "gut call", I say: Finding edges in statistical categories leads to finding strengths and weaknesses in a team. Teams do this themselves when preparing for an opponent. We can do this to find potential avenues with which to predict certain scenarios in the game. Predicting certain scenarios, certain schemes, where team A will try to attack team B, and so forth is exactly what each team is doing as we speak. Obviously stats are only a portion of capping the game. You do have to rely on your gut instincts, but sometimes they may lead you down the wrong path. You may rely on some historical data, you may rely on trends. I am not here to debate the merits of any system or method of capping. But I am defending the use of stats, whether it's the Super Bowl or a week 9 game, comparing stats is never going to be a bad thing.

Trying to get everything you need to know from NFL Live or ESPN's Sportscenter is going to lead you in the wrong direction. I feel you need to look at the numbers yourself and figure out the deeper meaning. I listen to injury reports and some info from the media, but what you should understand over at ESPN is that they have a room of "stat boys" who dig up the stats, and pass them onto the talking heads on TV. These talking heads just latch onto a few key stats and regurgitate them for 2 weeks every chance they get, to make dramatic opinions and keep you tuned in. Many times, they don't give you the complete picture, just the glamorous part or the portion that they believe will matter the most to the game.

What we really want is the complete, unbiased story, and then we can make up our own mind. That's what I try to do anyways.

The Game:

The Super Bowl is always an interesting game to cap. There are many things that play into this game that make it unique. I won't get into everything, as I am sure you are aware of many of the difficulties in attempting to predict the outcome in a game like this. But a few things include the 2 week prep time for both teams/coaches, every possession being more critical, every mistake is magnified, and the tendency for teams who are down to perhaps get more aggressive earlier than they normally would (this depends on coaching but is more likely to happen than in any other game). I realize that a few stats may be more important than others. Of course, of prime importance in any football game, let alone the Super Bowl, is who wins the turnover battle. We will get into that in a little while.

Section 2:

Not a Home Game, but Not a Road Game (background on why I ran my numbers the way I did):

Another thing is this game is played at a neutral site. There has been much debate: Is it a road game? Who is the "home team"? The answer from a gambling perspective is: Both teams are playing in a "laid-back" road environment. It is not hostile. While there are many fans from the other team, there also may be an even amount of your own fans there. It is well known that the game is a very commercial game, and many of the people there are not die hard fans from one team or another. You have your corporate people who are there to network and watch a game, and then you have neutral fans who want to see a good SB, and won't be rooting like they would be at a home game for their favorite team. And then you have your die hard fans from either the Bears or Colts, who will be making as much noise as they can. So while it won't be a home dome game for the Colts who have dead silence to work with on offense, it also won't be like walking into NE or Ten and having a stadium full of rabid fans from the other team. Same for Chi, they won't have the home support, the comforts of their cold climate and boisterous fans. So it's not a home game, but it's not really a road game in a hostile environment, such as in Min or in GB.

When capping games, lately I have been looking primarily at how teams have performed in their L3 or L4 games either home or away, depending on whether they were host or visitor. But I disagree with using only the L3 road numbers for both teams in the Super Bowl. For that reason, I have spent some time adjusting a program to give me flexibility to decide which parameters are most important.

I have my stats divided into 4 categories:

Season Home Games
Season Road Games
L3 Road Games (during the season)
Playoff Games

I am able to add any weight to the 4 categories I choose, so long as they add to 100%. So whether I want the playoff games count for 50% of the stats or 35% or any % I choose, I can.

I have chosen to look at the stats this way because how a team did in a home game in week 12 should play into their season stats, but not nearly as much as how they did at home week 1, or how they did in the playoffs.

Important

Also, the way that I like to cap games is not to just look at PPG scored for the home team and compare it to PPG scored for the road team. To me, that is pretty meaningless. The missing piece to that puzzle is who their opponents have been. If the Colts are putting up 20 PPG on the Pats, Ravens and Jags, 3 top teams in PPG allowed, while the Bears are putting up 30 PPG on the Lions, Titans and Cardinals 3 of the worst teams in PPG allowed, you can't compare the 20 to the 30.

You need to compare Indy's PPG scored w/ avg PPG allowed by Indy's opposition. Once you have that number, you can compare it to Chicago's PPG scored w/ avg PPG allowed by Chicago's opposition.

I have seen many "Super Bowl systems" that rank several statistical categories of the Colts and Bears, such as PPG, total yards allowed, rushing YPR, and others, and then say that the Bears will win the game because they have higher scores in 7 of the 10 categories compared to the Bears. To me, that is fine, but not ideal. As I said, if their opposition was different, you are no longer comparing apples to apples. To do this, you can't even just compare the overall "Strength of Schedule" of their opposition, you have to compare PPG allowed (for instance) on average for the Colts opposition, and then see how many PPG the Colts scored against them on average, to see if the Colts performed average, above average, or below average in PPG. And then you have to do the same w/ the Bears, and then you can finally compare the two teams to see how the performed in PPG vs. their opposition.

I know I am discussing stats in this thread. That is what I like to do. I also know that there are many who say "throw stats out the window for the Super Bowl, Colts roll". Or "Bears cover - no brainer". That is fine if you want to use your gambling judgment. Stats only play a part of my overall capping. But I feel they should be used and studied to determine if an obvious or subtle advantage is found. So while I use my gambling judgment as well when making my final play, I also like to look at what the stats are showing.

Now that I have introduced the background on how and why I do my calculations, I will begin to show you what I have come up with. As I said, I can determine what part of the season I want to weigh most in my calculations. So I am using several combinations. If you would like to see one that is not listed, feel free to post and ask me to show it. Just make sure it adds up to 100% or it would not make sense. Here are the 3 I am going with right now:

Scenario 1 (a 50/50 split between playoffs and regular season, w/ a slight lean towards road games, especially of late)

Season Home Games: 20%
Season Road Games: 30% (of which 15 % is L3 Road)
Playoffs: 50%

Scenario 2 (Not as much emphasis on the playoffs, but still over double that of a regular season game. More of a focus on road games over the season)

Season Home Games: 20%
Season Road Games: 45% (of which 17 % is L3 Road)
Playoffs: 35%

Scenario 3 (Extremely playoff heavy, and only slight amounts of regular season performance, particularly road games)

Season Home Games: 5%
Season Road Games: 10% (of which 5% is L3 Road)
Playoffs: 85%

Section 3:

A look into Scenario 1

A 50/50 split between playoffs and regular season, w/ a slight lean towards road games, especially of late

Season Home Games: 20%
Season Road Games: 30% (of which 15 % is L3 Road)
Playoffs: 50%

Remember, each team's production is listed and then compared to their opposition average. For offensive categories, the opposition average "allowed" is shown. Therefore, for most offensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed better than the opponent average - it shows you are performing better than average on offense.

For defensive categories, the opposition average "gained" is shown. Therefore, for most defensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed lower than the opponent average (holding them to fewer PPG, ypr, ypc...) - it shows you are performing better than average on defense.

(Also, these numbers are obviously percentages of stats from multiple games, so I rounded to the nearest decimal. Which is why you may see the Colts have an advantage by 0 yards. But the yardage really is 0.04 yards, and it rounds to 0. So that is essentially no advantage, but just explaining why it may show up.)

Offensive Categories

PPG Scored: Chicago Bears: 30 vs. Opp Avg 21.1, Indianapolis Colts: 25.1 vs. Opp Avg 18.3
Advantage: Bears by 2.1

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 19.6 vs. Opp Avg 17.7, Indianapolis Colts: 23.9 vs. Opp Avg 17.7
Advantage: Colts by 4.3

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 34.5 vs. Opp Avg 36.8, Indianapolis Colts: 52.3 vs. Opp Avg 36.8
Advantage: Colts by 17.9

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4 vs. Opp Avg 4.5, Indianapolis Colts: 4 vs. Opp Avg 4
Advantage: Colts by 0.5

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 52.2 vs. Opp Avg 59.2, Indianapolis Colts: 63.8 vs. Opp Avg 59.4
Advantage: Colts by 11.4

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 12.2 vs. Opp Avg 11.7, Indianapolis Colts: 11.2 vs. Opp Avg 11.5
Advantage: Bears by 0.8

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.9 vs. Opp Avg 0.9, Indianapolis Colts: 1.3 vs. Opp Avg 1.2
Advantage: Bears by 0.2

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.6 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 0.3 vs. Opp Avg 0.7
Advantage: Colts by 0.3

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 12.2 vs. Opp Avg 16.1, Indianapolis Colts: 7.7 vs. Opp Avg 15.6
Advantage: Colts by 4

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 39.7 vs. Opp Avg 51.1, Indianapolis Colts: 37.9 vs. Opp Avg 48
Advantage: Bears by 1.4

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 33.2 vs. Opp Avg 29.7, Indianapolis Colts: 31.6 vs. Opp Avg 29.6
Advantage: Bears by 1.5

Offensive Conclusion

Colts: 6 - First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards
Bears: 5 - PPG Scored, YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards, Time of Possession (min)

Defensive Categories

PPG Allowed: Chicago Bears: 18.4 vs. Opp Avg 21.7, Indianapolis Colts: 20.2 vs. Opp Avg 21.4
Advantage: Bears by 2.1

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 17.1 vs. Opp Avg 19.2, Indianapolis Colts: 16.4 vs. Opp Avg 18.6
Advantage: Colts by 0

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 33.1 vs. Opp Avg 38.4, Indianapolis Colts: 34.6 vs. Opp Avg 39.3
Advantage: Bears by 0.6

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4 vs. Opp Avg 3.9, Indianapolis Colts: 5 vs. Opp Avg 4.1
Advantage: Bears by 0.7

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 56.6 vs. Opp Avg 59.2, Indianapolis Colts: 62.2 vs. Opp Avg 61
Advantage: Bears by 3.8

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 10.8 vs. Opp Avg 11.6, Indianapolis Colts: 9.4 vs. Opp Avg 11.2
Advantage: Colts by 1

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.2 vs. Opp Avg 1.1, Indianapolis Colts: 1.3 vs. Opp Avg 0.9
Advantage: Colts by 0.3

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.4 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 0.7 vs. Opp Avg 0.7
Advantage: Bears by 0.6

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 21.2 vs. Opp Avg 15.5, Indianapolis Colts: 11.2 vs. Opp Avg 12.1
Advantage: Bears by 6.5

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 52.3 vs. Opp Avg 46.8, Indianapolis Colts: 38.1 vs. Opp Avg 49.6
Advantage: Colts by 17

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 28.3 vs. Opp Avg 30.4, Indianapolis Colts: 28.4 vs. Opp Avg 30.7
Advantage: Colts by 0.2

Defensive Conclusion

Colts: 5 - First Downs/Game, YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards, Time of Possession (min)
Bears: 6 - PPG Allowed, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards

Section 4:

A look into Scenario 2

Not as much emphasis on the playoffs as scenario 1, but still over double that of a regular season game. More of a focus on road games over the season

Season Home Games: 20%
Season Road Games: 45% (of which 17 % is L3 Road)
Playoffs: 35%

Remember, each team's production is listed and then compared to their opposition average. For offensive categories, the opposition average "allowed" is shown. Therefore, for most offensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed better than the opponent average - it shows you are performing better than average on offense.

For defensive categories, the opposition average "gained" is shown. Therefore, for most defensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed lower than the opponent average (holding them to fewer PPG, ypr, ypc...) - it shows you are performing better than average on defense.

Offensive Categories

PPG Scored: Chicago Bears: 28.8 vs. Opp Avg 21.2, Indianapolis Colts: 24.7 vs. Opp Avg 19
Advantage: Bears by 1.8

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 19.4 vs. Opp Avg 18, Indianapolis Colts: 23.5 vs. Opp Avg 18
Advantage: Colts by 4.1

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 35.6 vs. Opp Avg 37.4, Indianapolis Colts: 54 vs. Opp Avg 37.6
Advantage: Colts by 18.2

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4 vs. Opp Avg 4.4, Indianapolis Colts: 3.9 vs. Opp Avg 4
Advantage: Colts by 0.3

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 52.7 vs. Opp Avg 59.5, Indianapolis Colts: 63.9 vs. Opp Avg 59.7
Advantage: Colts by 11

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 12.1 vs. Opp Avg 11.7, Indianapolis Colts: 11.6 vs. Opp Avg 11.4
Advantage: Bears by 0.3

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 1 vs. Opp Avg 0.9, Indianapolis Colts: 1.2 vs. Opp Avg 1.1
Advantage: Colts by 0

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.6 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 0.3 vs. Opp Avg 0.7
Advantage: Colts by 0.2

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 11 vs. Opp Avg 15.7, Indianapolis Colts: 7.2 vs. Opp Avg 14.7
Advantage: Colts by 2.8

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 45 vs. Opp Avg 51.3, Indianapolis Colts: 40.7 vs. Opp Avg 48.8
Advantage: Colts by 1.8

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 32.4 vs. Opp Avg 29.8, Indianapolis Colts: 30.7 vs. Opp Avg 29.8
Advantage: Bears by 1.7

Offensive Conclusion

Colts: 8 - First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Interceptions/Game, Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards, Penalty Yards
Bears: 3 - PPG Scored, YPCatch, Time of Possession (min)

Defensive Categories

PPG Allowed: Chicago Bears: 17.9 vs. Opp Avg 21.3, Indianapolis Colts: 21.9 vs. Opp Avg 21.3
Advantage: Bears by 3.9

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 17.3 vs. Opp Avg 19.1, Indianapolis Colts: 18 vs. Opp Avg 18.4
Advantage: Bears by 1.3

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 32.2 vs. Opp Avg 38, Indianapolis Colts: 39 vs. Opp Avg 38.9
Advantage: Bears by 5.9

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 3.9 vs. Opp Avg 3.9, Indianapolis Colts: 5.2 vs. Opp Avg 4.2
Advantage: Bears by 1

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 57.3 vs. Opp Avg 59, Indianapolis Colts: 62.8 vs. Opp Avg 60.7
Advantage: Bears by 3.8

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 10.7 vs. Opp Avg 11.4, Indianapolis Colts: 9.8 vs. Opp Avg 11.2
Advantage: Colts by 0.6

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.2 vs. Opp Avg 1, Indianapolis Colts: 1.2 vs. Opp Avg 0.9
Advantage: Colts by 0.2

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.4 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 0.7 vs. Opp Avg 0.7
Advantage: Bears by 0.6

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 19.5 vs. Opp Avg 15.9, Indianapolis Colts: 9.7 vs. Opp Avg 12.3
Advantage: Bears by 6.2

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 59 vs. Opp Avg 48.8, Indianapolis Colts: 38.8 vs. Opp Avg 49.3
Advantage: Colts by 20.8

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 28.8 vs. Opp Avg 30.4, Indianapolis Colts: 29.3 vs. Opp Avg 30.5
Advantage: Bears by 0.4

Defensive Conclusion

Colts: 3 - YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards
Bears: 8 - PPG Allowed, First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards, Time of Possession (min)


Section 5:

A look into Scenario 3

Extremely playoff heavy, and only slight amounts of regular season performance, particularly home games

Season Home Games: 5%
Season Road Games: 10% (of which 5% is L3 Road)
Playoffs: 85%

Remember, each team's production is listed and then compared to their opposition average. For offensive categories, the opposition average "allowed" is shown. Therefore, for most offensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed better than the opponent average - it shows you are performing better than average on offense.

For defensive categories, the opposition average "gained" is shown. Therefore, for most defensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed lower than the opponent average (holding them to fewer PPG, ypr, ypc...) - it shows you are performing better than average on defense.

Offensive Categories

PPG Scored: Chicago Bears: 32.1 vs. Opp Avg 20.8, Indianapolis Colts: 25.2 vs. Opp Avg 16.5
Advantage: Bears by 2.5

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 19.5 vs. Opp Avg 17.1, Indianapolis Colts: 24.6 vs. Opp Avg 17
Advantage: Colts by 5.2

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 31.8 vs. Opp Avg 35.5, Indianapolis Colts: 49.2 vs. Opp Avg 34.8
Advantage: Colts by 18.2

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4 vs. Opp Avg 4.7, Indianapolis Colts: 3.9 vs. Opp Avg 3.9
Advantage: Colts by 0.8

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 50.6 vs. Opp Avg 58.4, Indianapolis Colts: 63.2 vs. Opp Avg 58.4
Advantage: Colts by 12.5

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 12.3 vs. Opp Avg 11.8, Indianapolis Colts: 10.4 vs. Opp Avg 11.6
Advantage: Bears by 1.7

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.6 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 1.8 vs. Opp Avg 1.3
Advantage: Bears by 0.7

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.5 vs. Opp Avg 0.7, Indianapolis Colts: 0.1 vs. Opp Avg 0.8
Advantage: Colts by 0.5

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 14.5 vs. Opp Avg 17, Indianapolis Colts: 10 vs. Opp Avg 17.6
Advantage: Colts by 5.1

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 27.6 vs. Opp Avg 50.9, Indianapolis Colts: 32.7 vs. Opp Avg 46.6
Advantage: Bears by 9.4

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 34.7 vs. Opp Avg 29.3, Indianapolis Colts: 33.2 vs. Opp Avg 28.9
Advantage: Bears by 1.1

Offensive Conclusion

Colts: 6 - First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards
Bears: 5 - PPG Scored, YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards, Time of Possession (min)

Defensive Categories

PPG Allowed: Chicago Bears: 18.8 vs. Opp Avg 22.9, Indianapolis Colts: 17.4 vs. Opp Avg 22
Advantage: Colts by 0.6

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 16.7 vs. Opp Avg 19.8, Indianapolis Colts: 13.6 vs. Opp Avg 19
Advantage: Colts by 2.3

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 35 vs. Opp Avg 40, Indianapolis Colts: 26.1 vs. Opp Avg 40.8
Advantage: Colts by 9.8

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4.2 vs. Opp Avg 3.8, Indianapolis Colts: 4.1 vs. Opp Avg 4
Advantage: Colts by 0.2

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 55.5 vs. Opp Avg 60.4, Indianapolis Colts: 61.3 vs. Opp Avg 61.7
Advantage: Bears by 4.6

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 11 vs. Opp Avg 11.9, Indianapolis Colts: 9 vs. Opp Avg 11.2
Advantage: Colts by 1.3

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 1 vs. Opp Avg 1.1, Indianapolis Colts: 1.6 vs. Opp Avg 0.8
Advantage: Colts by 0.8

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.5 vs. Opp Avg 0.7, Indianapolis Colts: 0.9 vs. Opp Avg 0.8
Advantage: Bears by 0.6

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 24.2 vs. Opp Avg 14.2, Indianapolis Colts: 13.3 vs. Opp Avg 11.4
Advantage: Bears by 8.1

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 38 vs. Opp Avg 42.5, Indianapolis Colts: 38.3 vs. Opp Avg 49.8
Advantage: Colts by 7

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 27.5 vs. Opp Avg 30.7, Indianapolis Colts: 26.7 vs. Opp Avg 31.4
Advantage: Colts by 1.3

Defensive Conclusion

Colts: 8 - PPG Allowed, First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards, Time of Possession (min),
Bears: 3 - Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards,

Section 6:

Passer Ratings (Playoffs & Reg Season)

Another key to Super Bowl performance is the play of your QB. It is usually essential to have an average if not solid performance from your QB to win this game. Peyton this season has been pretty remarkable.

To those who don't appreciate QB rating, it really is more of a useful tool than you may think. Using 5 inputs (attempts, completions, yards, TDs, Ints) it calculates Comp %, Yards/Attempt, TD% and Int%, and then weights them and combines them into one easy to use and compare number. Most everything you would want to know about the guy in one stat.

And the reason it is so important I will present to you here:

I was hoping to find this gathered somewhere online already. As I couldn't find it, I ran all the calculations myself, so here it is:

Of the 40 Super Bowl winners, 38 of winning teams had a higher QB rating in the Super Bowl than their opponent's QB rating! That is 95%. The only exceptions were actually last year, and in 1998.







QB performance (rating) is huge in the SB, and has an extreme correlation to SB success. So the question is, which QB do you think will have a better rating in the SB? Well, past success does not guarantee future success, but here are the numbers from the regular season.

Manning

When the Colts are losing, his rating of 106.4 is higher than when they are tied or when they have the lead.
In the 2nd half, his rating of 102.7 is higher than his 1st half rating.
On third down, his rating of 119.1 is better than on first or second down.
And his best rating of all is on 3rd and long (3rd and 8-10 yds), when his rating is 148.5.

Grossman on the other hand:

When the Bears are losing, his rating of 49.6 is much lower than when they are tied, or when they have the lead (102.9)
In the 2nd half, his rating of 67.2 is lower than his 1st half rating.
On 3rd down, his rating of 66.4 is lower than on first or second down.
And his WORST situational rating is on 3rd and long (3rd and 8-10 yds), when his rating is 47.3.

So lets look at how these guys did away from home:

Petyon vs. Rex

On the road: 93 vs. 67
On grass: 100.2 vs. 73.2
Peyton against NFC vs. Rex against AFC: 93.9 vs. 55.0
In wins: 106.7 vs. 86.8
In losses: 84.3 vs. 19.3

So what can we conclude about regular season performance? Well, the Rex was good when he was at home, when his team had the lead, and he was in manageable down & distances. Whether it's when his team is losing, when it is 3rd down, or when it is in the 2nd half, Rex just wasn't that good.

Peyton on the other hand, was incredible on 3rd downs, when his team was losing, or in the 2nd half. All this talk about the Colts on grass - Peyton had a 100 rating on grass, and even in losses, his rating still was an 84.

Now, moving onto the playoffs:

Peyton's 3 games: 71.9 vs KC, 39.6 @ Bal, 79.1 vs NE
Rex's 2 games: 76.9 vs. Sea, 73.2 vs NO

It is hard to really compare these to one another. For instance, the 39.6 jumps out at you for Peyton. We know that was a defensive, turnover filled FG battle, it isn't really surprising his numbers were bad. Even less so when you see that Baltimore was #1 in the league at opposing QB rating. The Best. Guess who was #2? That's right, New England. Peyton faced 2 of the toughest teams for QBs to face, and he faced them the last 2 weeks of the playoffs. Unfortunately for him, he now has to face Chicago, which is #3....

Rex on the other hand has been able to skate bye these past 2 games. First was Seattle with their 26th ranked D against QBs, then NO at #23. Indy isn't top 10, but they are #15, tougher than Rex has faced since (if we throw out GB, who was #8) Min on Dec 3rd, who was #5. Rex had a rating of 1.3, but Chi still won.

While Indy is #15, allowing a rating of 80.4 on the year, during the playoffs they forced Trent Green (74.1 during the season) to a 48.4, Steve McNair (82.4 during the season) to a 49.9, and Tom Brady (87.9 during the season) to a 79.5. So Indy has been stepping up a bit on not only run D but defending QBs during this postseason.

Now as you know, QB rating is not an indicator of Ws or Ls. I am not making a case that it is. I am stating that QB play is usually important in the Super Bowl, and showing you the numbers.

But strictly looking at the QB and his rating, it is impossible to discount the solid performance of Peyton this year, when it matters most, just as it is obvious that Rex, when it matters most, has come up short.


Section 7:

Special teams

We all know special teams have the impact to change the game in a single snap. And we know Chi has been great, but just how great have they been, and how bad has Indy been?

Is the spoon feeding ESPN has been giving us about the great Bears return game the truth, or a myth? And if true, how could it impact the game?

Chicago's Return O vs. Indy's return D

On the season, Chi ranked #1 in return TDs, #2 in punt return average, and #8 in kickoff return average.

Indy's ST D ranked #31 in return TDs allowed, #31 in punt return avg allowed, and #30 in kickoff return average allowed.

Those numbers are diametrically opposed, and extremely eye-opening.

Just for fun, let's see the flip side: Indy's return O against Chicago's return D

With only 1 return TD on the year, Indy ranked 13th in punt return average and #7 in kickoff return average (actually ahead of Chicago).

Chicago's ST ranked #23 in punt return average and #5 in kickoff return average allowed.

So if we matchup their numbers, Chi would have an advantage in both Kickoff return D and both Kickoff return O and punt return O. The only advantage for Indy would be in punt return O, where Chi allows more than Indy gains. This advantage for Chi is more lopsided than just these numbers, because when you look at the comparison, Chi is already #2 in punt return O, and Indy allows even more yards per punt return than Chi gains on average. Same thing with kickoff returns.

Now how have the regular season numbers translated into the playoffs?

The results are not good, but they are not good for both teams:

Indy has allowed 12.8 yards per punt return, which is just a hair better than the 13.1 in the regular season, but is far and away the worst of any team in the playoffs.

However Chicago has only averaged 5.8 yards per punt return, which is 3rd worst of the 12 teams in the playoffs, and well below the 12.1 ypr they averaged during the season.

Meanwhile, Indy has allowed 24.3 yards per kickoff return, which is 4th worst in the playoffs but is slightly better than what they averaged during the season.

Chicago is dead last in kickoff returns, only averaging 16 yards per return, which is well below the 23.3 they averaged on the season.

So when Indy is kicking:

They are doing slightly better than they did on the regular season, but still not great by any means. Chicago, on the other hand, is performing much, much worse than they did during the regular season in returning kicks.

I am looking at average numbers here, so the # of opportunities does not matter. Some have suggested Indy will kick away from Hester. Perhaps. Let's see what Seattle and NO did:

During the season, Chicago averaged just over 3.1 punt returns per game, and 3.7 kickoff returns per game.

Against Seattle they had 3 punt returns and 4 kickoff returns, and against NO they had 2 punt returns and 3 kickoff returns. So about average in the Seattle game, and less than average in the NO game.

I don't know if Indy will kick away from Hester or not. But he hasn't broken one yet, but then again, Seattle and NO have better return D than Indy.

Switch the fields, and now Chicago is kicking in the playoffs:

Chicago is allowing 22.9 yards per kickoff return, worse than the 20.8 they allowed during the regular season. But Chicago is allowing a mere 2.4 yards per punt return, much better than during the season.

Indy has returned their kickoffs for an avg of 19.1 yards, much worse than the 23.6 they did on the season, and returning punts for 11.2 yards, which actually is better than the 9 yards they averaged on the season.

So when Chicago is kicking:

Chicago has been poor on kickoffs, as has Indy. But on punts, Chi has been great, and so has Indy.

What does all of this ST discussion mean:

1. Chicago is explosive in their offensive return game, one of the best, and Indy's return D is terrible. However, on the playoffs, Indy’s return D has played a bit better and Chi’s return O really hasn't been doing that well in their return game. Some may have to do w/ facing the #6 and #17 ranked teams in punt returns.

2. Indy’s return O is above average in their return game, and Chicago is about average. Both Indy's return O and Chicago's return D have been doing better at punt returns than kickoff returns, so no distinct edge here.

3. If Indy can use some of the 2 weeks to improve the special teams, it will significantly improve their chances of winning.

Starting Field Position

The key to this return game, if TDs are not scored, is average starting field position. That is what the kicking game provides (FGs aside).

The Bears, out of 191 drives, started on average at their 32.2 yard line. That is good for #5 in the NFL. The Colts ST defense allowed the other team to start on its own 30.8 yard line, which is #23 in the NFL. So you have one really above average O (Chi) against a slightly below avg D (Ind).

The Colts, out of 148 drives, started on average at their own 28.7 yard line. That is #27 in the NFL. The Bears ST defense allowed the other team to start on its own 29.4 yard line, which is #11 in the NFL. So you have a really below average O (Ind) against a slightly above avg D (Chi).

While you may not think a 3 yard advantage is much of an advantage, remember - that is just the AVERAGE. They key when comparing one team to the other for this statistic is to realize the Bears are great at getting their offense quality starting field position, and the Colts are bad at allowing good starting field position, and are bad at getting their own offense quality starting field position.

So while return numbers are good, starting field position is even better at determining an advantage. It is clear the Bears have a very good advantage here, and the myths that the Bears return game is great is not only true, it has resulted in significant starting field position advantage.


Section 8

Red Zone

The red zone undoubtedly will play a key role in this Super Bowl, as it does in most Super Bowls. Let's look at both regular season and postseason numbers:

Regular Season: Indy O vs. Chi D

Indy was #2 in the league, converting 92% of red zone drives into points, 66% of which were TDs.

Chicago was #9 on defense, allowing 80% of red zone drives to be converted into points, 48% of which were TDs.

Regular Season: Chi O vs. Indy D

Chicago was #18 on offense, converting 84% of red zone drives into points, 48% of which were TDs.

Indy was #31 on defense, allowing 82% of red zone drives into points, 59% of which were TDs.

What do the regular season numbers tell us?

So as good as Indy was on offense, they were as bad on defense. Meanwhile, Chi was above avg on defense and just below average on offense.

In the Postseason

Postseason: Indy O vs. Chi D

Indy was #7 out of 12 playoff teams, converting 92% of red zone drives into points, but only 50% of which were TDs. However, Indy did face the #1 and #2 regular season red zone defenses (Balt and NE) in the playoffs.

Chi was dead last of the 12 playoff teams, allowing all 4 red zone drives to be converted not just into points, but into TDs. That's 100% for points and 100% for TDs. And they didn't face a top 10 red zone offense - the #11 and #14 ranked regular season red zone offenses.

Postseason: Chi O vs. Indy D

Chi was #3 out of 12 teams, converting 88% of red zone drives into points, 63% of which were TDs. However, they faced the #28 and #22 red zone defenses.

Indy was #9 out of 12 teams, allowing 71% of red zone drives to be converted into points, 57% of which were TDs. However they did face the #3 and #5 (KC and NE) ranked red zone offenses on the regular season.

What do the postseason numbers tell us?

Indy has faced much stiffer red zone competition, two top 5 teams in both defense and offense, and still performed well. They converted 92% of offensive opportunities, same as the regular season, and allowed fewer red zone drives to be converted into points on defense - 71%, which is actually better than Chi did on the regular season.

Chicago has faced mediocre competition, and has not impressed. They converted slightly more red zone possessions into points as they did on the regular season, and although they converted a larger % into TDs, they faced some very weak red zone defenses. On defense, they have been terrible in the playoffs, allowing all 4 drives to score TDs, and not facing a red zone offense nearly as good as Indys.

The advantage here must go to the Colts. If this was the first playoff game, you would lean towards the Bears, but after seeing how Indy has performed against some of the leagues finest in red zone offense/defense, and how poorly Chi has performed against the opposite, the Colts clearly deserve this check.


Section 9

A look at the lines:

First, Indy's O-Line vs. Chicago's D-Line

There has been a lot of talk about how Chicago D-Line was hurt by losing Tommie Harris. We know on the season they are holding opponents to 4 ypr. You can see above how my stats break out for ypr based on portions of the season. I can tell you that at home, surprisingly, they allowed 4.3 ypr to teams who usually gain only 4.0 ypr. They did worse than avg. But on the road, they held teams to 3.7 ypr who averaged 3.9 on the season. And their L3 on the road, they clamped up even more, allowing only 3.4 to teams who averaged 4.0. In the playoffs, though, they allowed Seattle and NO, teams who averaged 3.8 ypr on the year, to run for 4.3 ypr. So while they clamped up during the regular season, they have struggled so far in the playoffs.

Let's look at how Chi's run D ranks by position - the numbers are the ypr allowed, followed by rank (these positions are not exact, just to show approximate location):

LE: 4.09, 16th
LT: 3.53, 7th
MID: 3.99 5th
RT: 4.18 17th
RE: 3.08 6th

As you can see, they are very stout in the middle, ranking 5th in the league at runs up the middle. They are also good at defending runs to their far right (offense's left). Their have weaknesses on their left side and right tackle. So up the middle is tough going.

So it is no surprise that they ranked #2 in the league at runs stuffed. Meaning runs that result in (on first down) zero or negative gain, or (on second through fourth down) less than one-fourth the yards needed for another first down. (Imagine how good they would be w/ Tommie Harris...) But they ranked #28th in the league in runs of 10+ yards. So like I said, up the middle and you get stuffed, away from the middle and you may have more success.

Other teams were aware of this as well, because on the season, they rushed only 42% of the time up the middle on Chi, which is 7% less than the league average. They rushed above the league average on Chicago's RT and LT.

Now, let's start looking at real game stats: Chicago's 3 best performances against the run came against AZ (1.7 ypr), NE (2.5 ypr) and TB (3.0 ypr). So let's take a look at how those teams tendencies on the season, and where they are successful in running behind their O-Lines.

AZ is terrible at running the ball (tell me something we don't know) and run to their left an avg of #22 in the league, and to their right an avg of 28th in the league.
NE likes to run either up the middle, or to their LE. This plays right into Chi's hands, as Chi is best up the middle and on their RE. NE's combined rank is 12th to their left and 28th to their right.
TB is well below average running to their left. Their avg rank to the left is 26th and to the right is 17th. Not much better.

So it's not really surprising that Chi held these teams to few YPR.

Let's examine Chicago's 3 worst performances against the run.

SF (7.2 ypr) - SF is great running to their LE, avg 6 ypr and #2 in the league, and is well above avg #12 at running to their RE. So they can get run to both edges w/ success.
NYG (6.8 ypr) - They are great at running to the outside. They rank #3 to their LE, #4 to their RT and #2 to their RE.
MIN (5.5 ypr) - They are also top 5 at running to the outside - ranking #5 in runs behind both their RE and RT. They also are top 10 in runs behind their LT.

So as you can see, teams that had success against Chi were able to run outside w/ success, not necessarily all the way outside, but let's say not up the middle.

Well how did Indy do on the year?

They were #1 in the league in runs behind their LT, and top 10 in runs behind both their LE and RT. And not only that, they were #5 in runs up the center. Their runs up the center was better than SF, NYG or MIN up the center.

So as long as Indy does not focus on trying to jam the ball up the middle, and uses runs off the middle (which they are successful at doing), they could have moderate to good success running the ball.

I know ESPN will tell you that Indy won't be able to run the ball on Chi, but we will see what happens. I am not predicting monster numbers from either back. But success would be gaining just enough yardage to keep the D honest, to allow things to open up for Peyton, and to provide some long runs when the D is expecting pass. I think if the Colts develop a good gameplan in this regard, they will come out on top.

Bears O-Line vs the Colts D-Line

We know the Colts have been run on during the regular season. We know that during the regular season they averaged 5.3 ypr against. Tell that to them now. In the playoffs so far they have held opponents who gain 3.9 ypr on average to only 3.6 ypr. Very impressive indeed. Remember, in the playoffs, the Bears allowed teams who averaged 3.8 ypr on the year, to run for 4.3 ypr. So the Colts really stepped up, which can't be said for the Bears.

Back to the Colts, they were #32 in power success, which is defined as Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer.

They were #30 in runs of 10+ yards.

Here are their numbers during the regular season by position (ypr followed by rank):

LE: 1.86 1st
LT: 4.94 26th
MID: 4.99 32nd
RT: 5.71 32nd
RE: 3.24 8th

Surprisingly good on either end, but only because their opponents just run straight up the gut on them. In fact, of the runs against Indy this season, 61% went right up the middle. The league avg is 49% up the middle. (Interestingly enough, the only team that had a higher % of runs straight up the middle was NE, w/ a whopping 68%).

So they are bad up the middle, and opponents know it and have tried to take advantage of it.

I won't break down their opponents, because there were 6 games on the year they allowed 6 or more ypr. Absolutely terrible. But I will say that those teams who were able to do well against Indy, could run the ball up the middle:

NYG - #12 up the middle, #4 to their RT
PHI - #3 up the middle
JAC - #4 up the middle, #3 to their LT
DEN - $6 up the middle, #7 to their RT
the only exception would be:
TEN - which was only #23 up the middle and #16 to their RT. Part of this one has to do w/ Vince Young - ran 9 times for 78 yards in one game, and 4 times for 43 yards and Ten's only TD in the other game.

So, let's guess what the Bears are good at?

How about ranking #1 at running up the middle, and #8 to their LT.

Now remember, Indy on O is #1 behind their LT and #5 up the middle, so collectively better than the Bears. But the point is, the Bears have a better run D than the Colts do, at least during the regular season.

The real key will be, does Indy continue to surprisingly excel in the run D dept like they did their first 3 playoff games?

Because remember, their opponents in the playoffs:

KC - #8 up the middle
Bal - #20 up the middle, #9 to their LT
NE - #9 up the middle

They had well above avg running attacks up the middle (save for Bal), but Indy still held them to below their avg rushing yards, and won all 3 games.

And those regular season games, when they allowed over 6 ypr to those other teams I listed above, Indy's record in those games was 5-2. So just because Chi may have the power to run on Indy, it does not equate to a win necessarily. So don't be surprised to see Chi time and time again try to pound the ball up the middle.

Section 10

Conclusions:

My favorite scenario is scenario 1, which is a 50/50 split between playoffs and regular season, w/ a slight lean towards road games, especially of late. Overall, these numbers show a VERY EVEN game. Indy holds a 6-5 advantage in offensive stats, and Chi holds a 6-5 advantage in defensive stats. And w/ those numbers, there are several key battles.

First of course is the turnover battle. Chicago has been thriving by taking 1.4 fumbles per game whereas opponents averaged only 0.8 on the regular season. But Indy has only fumbled 0.3 times per game, less than the 0.7 their opponents usually force. Indy has thrown 1.3 ints per game and Chi only 0.9, but both are about what their opponents average for interceptions. Indy actually has a slight bit more interceptions on D than Chicago, and the number looks larger when you factor that Indy’s opponents don’t throw as many ints as Chi’s opponents. So this turnover battle will be key. If Chi can force Indy to fumble or create a couple Ints, Chi really has an advantage. On the other hand, if Indy takes care of the ball, it really will hurt Chi because they are used to generating these turnovers.

Second is 3rd down conversions. Chi only averaged 35% while Indy was at 52% Indy was well above opponent avg. Both teams on D hold their opponents below their usual average, and both Ds are right around 34% in preventing 3rd down conversions. So the numbers here don’t bode well for Chi on offense, but the real battle will be Indy’s O vs Chi’s D. If Indy can convert about 50% of their 3rd downs, they will severely strain Chi, as Chi is used to holding teams to much lower % and getting their offense back on the field.

Then you have the running game, and while both teams are averaging 4 ypr, Chi’s opponents are giving up 4.5, so Chi has been below avg in their run game. But we all know Indy has struggled in theirs, and even w/ factoring playoff numbers in for 50% of the total, Indy is giving up 5 ypr, almost 1 more than opponent avg. If Indy can continue their dominant form from the last 3 games, they have a good shot at holding Chi to around 4 ypr and that would really benefit Indy. If Chi is able to get closer to 5 ypr, they have really helped themselves.

Scenario 2: If you want to look at a scenario where there is not as much emphasis on the playoffs as scenario 1, but still over double that of a regular season game (more of a focus on road games over the season), then we find that the Colts have an 8-3 advantage on offense, while the Bears have the 8-3 advantage on defense. So much more uneven on both sides of the ball, but the numbers balance out somewhat, and you can determine whether you prefer the stronger offense or the stronger defense.

Scenario 3: If you are a fan of “what have you done for me lately”, and want to look at a scenario which is extremely playoff heavy (85%), and only slight amounts of regular season performance, particularly home games: The Colts have that same narrow advantage on offense, 6-5, but actually have a solid 8-3 advantage on defense. Taking regular season more heavily you had that same 8-3 advantage for the Bears. So if the Colts step up as they have the past 3 games, and the Bears play in line w/ their last couple of playoff games, we could see a good game on offense but one where the Colts D steps up when it counts and tames the Bears offense.

So those are the primary angles I see w/ regard to the numbers generated in the scenarios.

Looking more at the other analyses:

Passer ratings – no question passer rating has mattered in the Super Bowl, the true question is which QB has the better game. I have more confidence in Manning, particularly after seeing his performance in the regular season. However, both QBs are somewhat prone to getting nervous, tight, and making bad decisions, Manning in big moments, and Rex when his team is down or struggling. While all the talk has been about Chi’s D scheming to stop Manning, and Rex just folding in the big game, we haven’t heard as much talk about what Indy’s D will do w/ Dungy to stop Chi’s run game. While that doesn’t have anything to do w/ passer rating, it will play a part in the confidence of each QB. I give the nod to Peyton and the Colts in this one, w/ the potential for it to be even if Peyton chokes, and the potential for it to be a landslide if Rex gets down and pressured, and starts making bad decisions.

Special teams – Chi has been great this year, no doubt, and Indy has been average, or below average. I am not talking about FGs here, I am talking return games, on O and D. Chi has struggled a bit in the playoffs, and if they continue that struggle, their biggest hope to aid their offense: Field Position, their dreams will go down the drain. If Chi can force Indy to drop into the 30s w/ 3rd down completion %, and get their return game going, I can see Chi going a long way towards a close game, and even a win. Chi MUST get the same great field position (#5 on the year) they did during the regular season. I definitely will not give this category to the Colts. It may not be as lopsided as some will think, due to Chi’s recent struggles. Couple that w/ the fact that Chi needs field position to have a chance in this one, the pressure is really on. I give a slight lean to Chi, mainly because if they have an avg day, it won’t be enough for the W. They need a great day. Adv Chi, but it is essential.

Red Zone – Chi has struggled in the playoffs, allowing 100% redzone possessions to be turned into 7 points. It doesn’t get easier facing the #2 team in the league. Indy has played tougher opposition recently in red zone O and D than has Chi, and has performed well. The advantage here goes to the Colts.

O-Lines/D-Lines – Chi can be run on and beat, and Indy seems to have a run game that has enjoyed decent success at running towards Chi’s weaknesses. However, a more decided advantage lies for Chi in running up the middle of Indy’s run D. I know nothing of the gameplans of either OC, but I will tell you that if you see Indy running up the middle to much, they are in for trouble. Indy backers better hope they run away from the middle, and Bears backers must hope they pound the middle of Indy’s D-Line. The problem in determining a true advantage here is that Indy has stepped up so significantly here. And this comparison is not just the ypr success, as I have discussed that earlier. It is which team can be run on best by the other team. I have to give a slight nod to the Bears, but believe me, it is not as lopsided as those pundits on ESPN want you to think. It depends on how Indy attacks Chi’s line, but so long as Indy is not getting stuffed constantly, they will keep the D honest, open up the pass game even more, and generate some surprising long gainers on runs of 10+ yards. Again, nod to the Bears but not landslide victory.

Section 11

My Pick

I have tried to bring the above analysis as unbiased as possible. I will tell you that the following bets will be slightly biased, as I already have a sizeable amount on Indy ML for +150.

I do think Indy wins this game. I think there is a good chance it will be a close game, and there are several keys to deciding the outcome. I am a value bettor, and I do see some value in the Bears +7.5, so long as certain things go their way. Can they win? Absolutely. Do they need to hold the Colts on 3rd down, generate a key turnover or two, and provide quality starting field position to do so? Definitely.

It is for this reason that I will add a play on Bears +7.5 and hope they step up to the table. I’d love a 3, 4 or 7 point win for the Colts obviously. But if everything goes right for the Bears and they will get the win, and I don’t want to be out everything I put on the Colts.

So I’ll take about 70% of the play I made on Colts ML and throw it onto the Bears +7.5. Right now +7.5 is -130 at Pinny, which I don’t like. Shop elsewhere, or wait until more Colts money comes in closer to gametime.

There is a chance to put in about 10% of my Colts ML bet and put it on Bears ML +220 or more. If I did that, the 3 scenarios would be:

Colts Win and Cover = 70% profit of Colts bet
Colts Win/Bears Cover = 201% profit of Colts bet
Bears Win = -17% loss of Colts bet

Which would equate to an average of 85% profit of my Indy ML over the 3 plays.

If I didn’t go for the middle (& hedge w/ Bears ML), I would have:

Colts Win and Cover = 150% profit of Colts bet
Colts Win/Bears Cover = 150% profit of Colts bet
Bears Win = -100% loss of Colts bet

Which would equate to an average of 67% profit of my Indy ML over the 3 plays

I’ve equated the %’s, and because I feel that Indy has about a 85% chance to win, and a 35% chance to cover, I think this is the way to go. If I wanted to ensure profit, I could throw more than 10% on Bears ML, but as I think they only have about a 15% chance to win, I don’t want to throw too much on it. We will see what happens.

I have not made any of these plays on the Bears yet, so these % are rough right now, and as always, I will look to maximize value with in-game betting.

If I had to recommend a pick to someone who had no Indy ML pending, I probably would lean to taking the Bears and the points, but I also like Indy to win the game. So that is why I feel cautiously confident in my position, and why I like the fact that I will set myself up to have great chance at a good day, a decent chance at an incredible day, and a only a mediocre chance at a slightly subpar day. Indy could cover, so I would not bet more than I am willing and able to lose on the Bears +7.5

I look forward to hearing comments both good and bad.

Good luck on your wagers.