My plays are made based on the stats that generate these projections, not the projections themselves. I don't bet simply based on these projections, they are just interesting and helpful tools in my opinion. As I said last week, sometimes the game flow will lead to anomalous outcomes, as the projections are based on averages across the underlying stats. Most of the time, game flow will be near enough to the projected values that the projections will be fairly accurate. Sometimes, it won't. Adding up across the stat projections will prove inaccurate in these occurrences. The underlying stats are better predictors of this, and that's why they're used by the system instead of the projections.
So flip a coin?
0
Quote Originally Posted by NFL_Sharp:
My plays are made based on the stats that generate these projections, not the projections themselves. I don't bet simply based on these projections, they are just interesting and helpful tools in my opinion. As I said last week, sometimes the game flow will lead to anomalous outcomes, as the projections are based on averages across the underlying stats. Most of the time, game flow will be near enough to the projected values that the projections will be fairly accurate. Sometimes, it won't. Adding up across the stat projections will prove inaccurate in these occurrences. The underlying stats are better predictors of this, and that's why they're used by the system instead of the projections.
perhaps these rankings show the strength of play (ATS) for this particular week, not the rankings in their usual sense.
in this case, i agree, the bears will beat packers this week, SU.
Based on what? Gut instinct? GB has dominated this series and have won every BIG game against Chicago. It's for the division and against the Bears, GB won't come out flat.
Only way the Bears win is if GB gifts the game to the Bears by turnovers or it's a flag fest against GB like 3 years ago; big if's if you ask me.
0
Quote Originally Posted by tuco:
perhaps these rankings show the strength of play (ATS) for this particular week, not the rankings in their usual sense.
in this case, i agree, the bears will beat packers this week, SU.
Based on what? Gut instinct? GB has dominated this series and have won every BIG game against Chicago. It's for the division and against the Bears, GB won't come out flat.
Only way the Bears win is if GB gifts the game to the Bears by turnovers or it's a flag fest against GB like 3 years ago; big if's if you ask me.
In your predictions you don't have a single team this week scoring over 29 pts? And the highest scoring team is Miami with 29. Why is that?
My model accounts for turnovers, but only minimally. And in the case where they could still be overweighted based on recent performances, there is an even greater limit put on them. Turnovers are impossible to predict, and these often lead to quick, easy points (either by pick sixes, short field, etc). Similarly, my model does not account for special teams at all - so a great punt return setting up a score, or a blocked punt, etc, are not included whatsoever in the model. I feel completely justified in doing this, as picking the team with bad turnovers leading to points or big special teams plays would be a losing battle, by a long shot (even if the most turnover-prone team were to play the defense that forced the most). So, I'm sure that my model understates scores to a certain degree. That's why I've said that overs perform a bit better than unders in my model (which they do, based on past results). But there are also cases where a turnover in the opponent's redzone can take points off the board, and there are certainly a large percentage of games without a key turnover or special teams play leading directly to points that otherwise were not "earned" through efficient offensive football. So overall, while there is a certain factor that cannot be accounted for and inevitably accounts for an underweighting of scores, the significance is not by any means enormous, and I'm confident these projections are very accurate.
Plugging in the actual stats from last week's Ari/Sea game into the model gives a score of 34-1 Seattle. A lot of points taken off the board for Seattle - directly as a result of the effects of the 8 turnovers (my model limits these). Without a limit, the score would be projected 45-0. But how often does a team turn the ball over 8 times in a game - this is clearly an outlier and no cause for alarm.
Good luck this week.
0
Quote Originally Posted by hammer22:
In your predictions you don't have a single team this week scoring over 29 pts? And the highest scoring team is Miami with 29. Why is that?
My model accounts for turnovers, but only minimally. And in the case where they could still be overweighted based on recent performances, there is an even greater limit put on them. Turnovers are impossible to predict, and these often lead to quick, easy points (either by pick sixes, short field, etc). Similarly, my model does not account for special teams at all - so a great punt return setting up a score, or a blocked punt, etc, are not included whatsoever in the model. I feel completely justified in doing this, as picking the team with bad turnovers leading to points or big special teams plays would be a losing battle, by a long shot (even if the most turnover-prone team were to play the defense that forced the most). So, I'm sure that my model understates scores to a certain degree. That's why I've said that overs perform a bit better than unders in my model (which they do, based on past results). But there are also cases where a turnover in the opponent's redzone can take points off the board, and there are certainly a large percentage of games without a key turnover or special teams play leading directly to points that otherwise were not "earned" through efficient offensive football. So overall, while there is a certain factor that cannot be accounted for and inevitably accounts for an underweighting of scores, the significance is not by any means enormous, and I'm confident these projections are very accurate.
Plugging in the actual stats from last week's Ari/Sea game into the model gives a score of 34-1 Seattle. A lot of points taken off the board for Seattle - directly as a result of the effects of the 8 turnovers (my model limits these). Without a limit, the score would be projected 45-0. But how often does a team turn the ball over 8 times in a game - this is clearly an outlier and no cause for alarm.
I dont get how Seattle can be next to dead last (31) on defense when they just shut out Cards 58-0 ?
I think Seattle Defense is top 8..!
I agree - for the entire season I think Seattle definitely has a top 8 defense. But not over the past 3 weeks, efficiency wise. Certainly a shutout improves their ranking, but how much of the shutout was due to turnovers - and the system also takes SOS into account - how impressive is it for a top caliber defense to give up minimal points to a bottom dwelling offense (with the benefit of 8 turnovers no less). The previous week, the far below average offense of the Bears was very efficient (9 YPA, 4YPR, no sacks allowed, etc, etc), and the week before that, a below average Miami offense performed similarly (9.5 YPA, 6.8 YPR, etc, etc). This is where my model excels - in the face of bias (I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else at all - humans are biased - I'm the same way). On the outside, everyone sees a 58-0, 8 forced turnover massacre of the Cardinals and thinks Seattle's defense is playing at an elite level. They fail to remember the previous two weeks against inferior (even compared to the average) offenses, where that same defense allowed an average YPA over 9 (very high) and average YPR over 5 (very high) to go along with other poor defensive stats.
I don't disagree that Seattle has a top level defense. But I only care about how they're playing now. And "now" doesn't mean the previous game that can be filled with almost entirely random noise (like 8 turnovers). In my model, now means the previous three weeks, where Seattle has performed poorly, even if they had been facing above average offenses. The fact that the two were far below average only drops them further in the rankings. A shutout of one of, if not the worst offense in the league, helps their ranking, but isn't near enough to dig them out of the hole dug by their previous two showings against below average offenses.
I truly wasn't trying to sound arrogant or condescending, if I came across that way. Good luck this week sir.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Thaistix:
I dont get how Seattle can be next to dead last (31) on defense when they just shut out Cards 58-0 ?
I think Seattle Defense is top 8..!
I agree - for the entire season I think Seattle definitely has a top 8 defense. But not over the past 3 weeks, efficiency wise. Certainly a shutout improves their ranking, but how much of the shutout was due to turnovers - and the system also takes SOS into account - how impressive is it for a top caliber defense to give up minimal points to a bottom dwelling offense (with the benefit of 8 turnovers no less). The previous week, the far below average offense of the Bears was very efficient (9 YPA, 4YPR, no sacks allowed, etc, etc), and the week before that, a below average Miami offense performed similarly (9.5 YPA, 6.8 YPR, etc, etc). This is where my model excels - in the face of bias (I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else at all - humans are biased - I'm the same way). On the outside, everyone sees a 58-0, 8 forced turnover massacre of the Cardinals and thinks Seattle's defense is playing at an elite level. They fail to remember the previous two weeks against inferior (even compared to the average) offenses, where that same defense allowed an average YPA over 9 (very high) and average YPR over 5 (very high) to go along with other poor defensive stats.
I don't disagree that Seattle has a top level defense. But I only care about how they're playing now. And "now" doesn't mean the previous game that can be filled with almost entirely random noise (like 8 turnovers). In my model, now means the previous three weeks, where Seattle has performed poorly, even if they had been facing above average offenses. The fact that the two were far below average only drops them further in the rankings. A shutout of one of, if not the worst offense in the league, helps their ranking, but isn't near enough to dig them out of the hole dug by their previous two showings against below average offenses.
I truly wasn't trying to sound arrogant or condescending, if I came across that way. Good luck this week sir.
How and in what world are the bears ranked #1? please explain? they suck
Defense has performed with a high efficiency the past three weeks. The offense played very efficiently against a good Seattle defense, and turnovers have plagued their efficiency in the previous two vs Minnesota - neither of which were terrible performances. My model limits the effect turnovers have as they are unpredictable. Chicago's top ranking is based in large part to them being above average on both sides of the ball, over the past three, SOS adjusted. Most teams are significantly deficient on one side or the other, which brings their overall ranking down. The Bears previous three have been solid on both sides. Most will look at the scores, see a 1-2 record against Seattle at home and Minnesota twice and call the Bears awful. Efficiency stats (best suited to beat the spread over the long run, in my opinion) say otherwise.
Good luck this week sir.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Teaser78:
How and in what world are the bears ranked #1? please explain? they suck
Defense has performed with a high efficiency the past three weeks. The offense played very efficiently against a good Seattle defense, and turnovers have plagued their efficiency in the previous two vs Minnesota - neither of which were terrible performances. My model limits the effect turnovers have as they are unpredictable. Chicago's top ranking is based in large part to them being above average on both sides of the ball, over the past three, SOS adjusted. Most teams are significantly deficient on one side or the other, which brings their overall ranking down. The Bears previous three have been solid on both sides. Most will look at the scores, see a 1-2 record against Seattle at home and Minnesota twice and call the Bears awful. Efficiency stats (best suited to beat the spread over the long run, in my opinion) say otherwise.
imma give myself credit for bein "sharp"....im on all ya plays cept TB and the jets total....(not that i dont agree...they just dont standout to me some of the others).....
like anybody gives a flying sh i t what you agree and what you don't. You also came into my thread which had more or less same plays and called them bulls i t. Get some life!
0
Quote Originally Posted by bobafett:
imma give myself credit for bein "sharp"....im on all ya plays cept TB and the jets total....(not that i dont agree...they just dont standout to me some of the others).....
like anybody gives a flying sh i t what you agree and what you don't. You also came into my thread which had more or less same plays and called them bulls i t. Get some life!
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Keep doing what your doing bud
Hot Forum Topics
