Misleading scores Week 3

[Valuist]

I have 2 nominees: NO/NYG and Cin/SD

In the Saints/Giants game, NO had the edge in first downs (20-13) and total yardage (330-253) as well as time of possession (32:29 to 27:31). They also had a TD taken away on the last play of the game due to a penalty.

In the SD/Cincy game, numbers were almost identical in first downs (Cincy 17 to 16), yardage (San Diego 245 to 237) and time of possession (SD 30:05 to 29:55). There was one big reason why the score was 28-7 in the 4th Quarter: San Diego was plus 4 in turnovers.

Seeing that the Giants did not dominate the line of scrimmage in an emotional return to Giants stadium is enough for me to back off on laying 2 TDs this week, even if they are facing a terrible team.

 

[dr. freeze]

I am gonna keep throwing a unit against the bad teams until they show me reason not too....

NO is good I think.

 

[Hoops]

Saints/Giants score was in no way misleading. Saints got most of their yards and points in the fourth quarter with NY playing a soft defense.

Giants did control the line of scrimmage,ran the ball effectively with Dayne, which is a first, and played the second half without Barber. Saints running game was held in check.

They had the last TD taken away because the receiver blatantly pushed a Giant defender out of the way trying to catch a desperation throw, since he had no chance of catching it.

 

[Valuist]

Even if the Saints gained much of their yardage against a prevent, that still doesn't change the fact the Giants only put up 253 yards of total offense. That's not real encouraging when you have to lay 14 pts.

 

[pepin46]

valuist

you can take your approach from any angle you want. i see a cinci team that could only sustain one meaningful drive for a score. i see from the scoring that s.d. had that game under control, with no need to take further chances in a game that was wrapped up. i picked cinci last week and must admit it was a terrible, capricious choice. their game with baltimore was won as a consequence of so many turnovers; again, no sustained drives for scores.

logic tells me that they will face the same problem in pitt, and i can't see them scoring more than one offens. td and one fg. i don't foresee pitt turning the ball over.

if i thought cinci could play a real tough defense and hold pitt to ten as well, i would pick cinci. as it turns out, i do have them in a teaser at +13 1/2, a number that i can live with for this game. i did not take pitts just in case they come out el flatto and lose the game. i can also picture a 10-10 ot. good bye teaser then.

as far as the giants: i have never been "sold" on them, but they have done their job. right now they need to open up that offense, sort of a confidence injector, if you will, and what better spot than with washington, which is in total disarray. a win of less than a couple of tds will leave question marks on their abilities, not so much for us bettors, but for their players' psychology. there is always the chance of a cheap wash td toward the end of the game, but i do believe even that will not cut into the line.

if washington made kc's struggling offense look great, the giants' offense should look even better.


pep

 

[Hoops]

Are you comparing the Saints defense to Washington's? Skins have a bottom five caliber D, maybe the leagues worst at this point. Saints are top 10 at worst. No comparision. Trying to read into NY gaining only 250 yds against New Orleans and factoring that into an equation going against a piss-poor Wash defense isn't relative at all.

Giants played it safe in the second half, Collins only threw 18 passes. Dayne went for over 100 yds on 19 carries, and as I mentioned, they played the second half without their best offensive player, Barber.

 

[Valuist]

I'm not comparing them to anyone in particular. All I'm saying is this isn't the Rams, Broncos, Raiders or Colts. I think those are the only teams that could be backed laying 2 TDs with confidence. As for Wash, their D looked terrible the last 2 weeks but gave up only 255 yds vs San Diego. The reason for the score was a minus 4 in turnovers. You can't count on that happening every week. Get past the scores and wins and losses and it puts teams in a much different perspective.

 

[Hoops]

Sure, get past teams wins and losses, but you can't always rely on what a boxscore tells you. Watching that particular game, and this coming from a Giant-hater, any objective person would have said the Giants were the better team and deserved to win the game by a TD. They controlled the line of scrimmage, as evidenced by doubling the Saints rushing yardage, and forced the Saints into having to throw 56 passes. Giants played a conservative gameplan and it worked. Saints are on oppurtunistic defense, Giants did not allow themselves to be beat by turnovers. Should be a much different gameplan against Washington, as they should open up the playbook. Not saying a play on the Giants is the right way to go, but with the way Wash has opened the season, they are an easy 2TD dog on the road to any decent team at this point.

 

[Hoops]

Not sure how you could have confidence with the Colts laying 2TD's after Sunday. That didn't work out too well. I'd rather have to lay that many with a decent offensive team that has a very good defense, rather than a very good offensive team with a weak defense.

[This message has been edited by Hoops (edited 10-03-2001).]

 

[Valuist]

I meant that those are the only 4 teams I would even consider laying 14 pts with. I don't advocate laying double digits, regardless of how bad the opponent seems. If I don't like the dog (like in Wash's case), I'll pass the game. But I'm not going to get done in by a back door on this game, which could very well happen. Why should the game plan be much different? Let's face it, in the NFL, you get the lead and then you go to work on the clock. Most often, lobsided scores are a result of numerous turnovers.

 

[husvus]

There seems to be one thing missing here, fellas. While we can all disect a box score and make deductions from those stats (and most certainly valid arguements), the bottom line is yardage conversion into points on offense and prevention of points on defense.

I'll take a team that can convert at a .700 clip with a defense that has an against conversion rate of .400 that gains only 275 yards while allowing 350 yards any day. A simple example but you see what I mean.

Both the Giant and Charger game showed significant advantages in both conversion categories last week.

Do they always win? Certainly not...but they will win more often than they lose. This is also a very simple way to get an early look at possible spread errors out the shute.

As for the Giant / 'Skin match up their conversion factors going into this game are:
NYG at home -Off- .830
NYG at home -Def_ ,394

Wash away -Off- .201
Wash away -Def- 1.045

So we see by these factors alone why the G-men a such a big fav (compare the "O" to "D" of either team) and you'll get a pretty good lean on the line.

Been using this method for 25+ years. It's consistent as a guide tool for solid capping in the NFL only.


Good Luck



------------------

Hugh's Views

 

[casper]

you guys make some good points. hoops i agree with you completely when you said you'd rather lay points with decent offensive/good defensive team vs a team with very good offense/decent or poor defense. case in point was the colts last week. this was one of the reasons i didn't take the colts, in fact i went the other way. i don't mind laying 2 td's if the team laying the chalk has a good defense. case in point is the giants and the rams. giants have a very good D, and the rams D has peformed rather well this season. i'm definately on the rams this week, and i'm probably going to play the giants as well, not sure yet. also, does the opposing qb have what it takes to get a back door? detmer and banks, i don't think so, esp. against the good defenses. i see interceptions which lead to more points. detmer won't hear shit trying to keep his composure, the giants fans will be very loud.

i watched all of the giants game...the giants line completely dominated on both sides of the ball, NO got no running game going, and not only did the O-line allow Dayne to run, but gave Collins time to pass. they eased up a little in the 2nd half it seemed, esp. in the 4th quarter. like hoops i also hate the giants but have watched them play alot and i am impressed with what i have seen, most notably the last 2 weeks. the defense has been ferocious, collins looks very relaxed and has had some nice accuracy when given decent time to throw the ball. dayne is faster than last year and explodes through the hole, something he didn't seem to do. last year it was like slow motion watching him go through the hole. the giants game could get ugly this week.

 

[Valuist]

Husvus--

True, efficiency is everything. But teams who score 30 pts with maybe only 260 yards of offense cannot expect to duplicate those numbers. They are anomolies. Just like teams who score 2 defensive TDs the previous week on returns cannot be counted on to do it again. Turnover differential and red zone performance are probably much more random than most fans would believe.

 

[husvus]

Valuist,

I know precisely what you're saying and am in total agreement. It is a fact, however that certain teams "make things happen on the defensive side of the ball". These defensive efforts factor into the offensive conversion factor.

To be more explicit in analyzing these factors one must use the league "mean" which in this week's games is .601 offense and defense.
Now we have some common ground on which to begin making reasonable projections.

This simply tells me that the Giants at home on offense are performing at 138.10% and on defense are performing at 85.52% of the league average.

On the other hand the 'Skins numbers versus the league away are 33.5% on offense and 173.91% on defense. Atrocious numbers!

This same methodology can be used in assessing rushing, passing, and scoring tendencies.

BTW, I'm sure that you are aware that the higher the offensive number, the better; and, the lower the number on defense, the better.

If you or any of the other 'cappers here at MJ's have developed a system that will account for turnover effect (without doubt the most difficult task
for me in making projections) I would love to hear it.

I know that you understand clearly the madness behind my method. Thanks for your respone and Good Luck!

BTW, using this system this particular game caps out at the Giants minus 14.99 with a total of 28.01.



------------------

Hugh's Views

 

[Valuist]

Husvus--

Regarding turnovers, I'm a believer in Phil Steele's theory of "Turnover turnaround". Teams with major turnover edges in one year often find themselves on the other side of the ledger the next and vica versa. While coverage INTs are all skill, fumble recoveries and INTs from deflected passes are more of a matter of being in the right place at the right time.

I did do a study on short term effects of turnovers. Teams who were +3 in turnovers the previous week had a better than normal chance of repeating their positive t/o rations and were 70-50 ATS in their next game. I call it "Turnover Awareness", in which a team gets a short term (1 week) adrenaline rush from their previous game by fixating on turnovers in their next game. They may make more of an effort to strip the ball, or just be more "ready" for pass deflections. Every week we see deflected passes go thru startled defenders hands; if they were anticipating them, they probably would be more likely to hold on to the ball. So short term, it seems to be a big edge. But long term, you wonder if these teams take these turnovers for granted.