NFL Magic Number Powerplay
It was 1983, and at the ripe age of 20 I was in my 4th year of learning the art of Handicapping the NFL. Some of my earliest impressions were formed from articles by Ed Horowitz and Gary Austin. Although Ed 'the Professor' was primarily a statistical capper, it was his technical articles that intriqued me the most. It took me a while, but I eventually grasped the idea that the final score very rarely reflects the statistics due to the many variables. At that point, I understood that a lot of things go on in a game, and that I was eager to get those things 'on my side'.
Among some of the research Ed and Gary printed was a quite simple system: Go Against any NFL team that scored 30 points or more in each of their last two games. I remember back then it was fairly successful, but given a 20-year data base right now, I doubt it's better than 50%. But it nevertheless shaped my thinking. At that point I began to realize that how teams score is somewhat irrelevant. Likewise, how they give up points was also virtually irrelevant.
Why? Because you don't get paid on yardage, you get paid on the final score. That is what intrigued me about some of Ed's ideas in regard to magic number systems using numbers like 30 and other systems using numbers like 10, or single digits, or zero. Over the years, there have been multitudes of variations of the 30-30 including going against teams that scored 70+ in the last two or 90+ in the last three. Man, the Rams alone would've eaten your lunch with that.
It's a different ball game now, but in 1983, just out of high school and living in a boarding house by choice, I uncovered a nugget through my usual research that lives on today. A simple nugget from the old school, I wondered what would happen if I combined those magic numbers of 30 and 10. In other words, how would a team respond if they scored 30 or more in each of their last two games AND allowed 10 or less in each of those same two games? I called it a "double peak". To me, those numbers respresented a 'team peak', and surely if a team accomplished that back to back, they would let down.
Remember, my thinking was that it is irrelevant how teams scored or how they allowed points. In other words, a statistical analysts would insist that scoring 30 back to back was not necessarity a 'double peak' offensively. Their defense could've scored 3 TD's while their offense actually struggled (and therefore did not peak). Likewise, their defense allowing only 10 points or less did not necessarily mean they "peaked". Heck, they could've given up 400 yards and still allowed only 10 points (and therefore, technically, I could not label it a defensive peak). That was the argument and it made sense, but only for a short time.
Then it dawned on me. If I go against a team off a 'double-peak' (believing somewhat incorrectly that the points reflect actual output), I am not banking on what this team will do (not do) in regard to 'output' in the first place, I am banking on what this team will do (not do) in regard to the SCOREBOARD. When the final whistle blows, that's all that matters. I could care less if the team I'm going against roles up 600 yards. What does the scoreboard say?
So with those thoughts in mind, I re-defined (for myself) what a peak was. It had nothing to do with output. To me, a "Team Peak" was determined by the Points Scored "IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM". Now that made sense to me. Forget who outplayed who. Which way did the ball bounce? Who got the breaks? If a team gets the breaks and if the ball bounces in their favor two week's in a row to the tune of 30-10 or better, I'm going against them. Since then, I put in a provision that would allow for a safety. So the actual numbers I use are 30-12.
From 1984 through 2000, the System is 17-7 for a healthy 71%. However, I have found that the system is only 50/50 (7-7) in division games, leaving it at a perfect 10-0 in non-division games. That makes perfect sense to me. After a couple peaks, the team is now playing a game of lesser importance. Stands to reason that they would be more inclined to let down in that role.
***GO AGAINST AN NFL TEAM THAT SCORED 30 OR MORE POINTS IN EACH OF THEIR LAST TWO GAMES WHILE ALLOWING ONLY 12 OR LESS POINTS IN THOSE SAME TWO GAMES IF THEY ARE NOW PLAYING A TEAM OUTSIDE OF THEIR DIVISION***
I marketed this sytem in 1987 and printed it in a Nationwide Publication in 1989. I caught some flack from a few services for putting it in print back then. They called me at my house and gave me a hard time, claiming, "that kind of stuff is for 'US'". I said, "Who's 'us'?" And the individual (whom you probably know) hung up. Anyway, I have posted it over the years and especially since 1998 when I started posting on the internet.
You may remember seeing it in 1999 at xxxxxxxxx.com when the Rams -8 fell victim to the system by losing straight up to the Eagles 38-31. Or last year when the Bucs -7 lost straight up to the Jets 21-17. The 10-0 system recently moved to 11-0 a few weeks ago when the Rams -11' were coming off a double peak. They almost lost straight up at home as the Giants gave them all they could handle in the Rams narrow 1-point victory 15-14.
It doesn't come up often (about 1/2 of 1% of all games), but when it does, it's hammer time. Here's the games since 1984...
1985: *DOLPHINS (+4 ) 38, Bears 24 Win
1988: *Eagles (+6) 21, VIKINGS 23 Win
1992: *Oilers (+6) 17, VIKINGS 13 Win
1992: *CHIEFS (+2) 24, Eagles 17 Win
1993: *Bengals (+24) 8, 49ERS 21 Win
1996: *49ers (+6) 20, PACKERS 23 Win
1996: *COWBOYS (-5) 12, Patriots 6 Win
1999: *COLTS (-4') 25, Chiefs 17 Win
1999: *EAGLES (+8) 38, Rams 31 Win
2000: *Jets (+7) 21, BUCCANEERS 17 Win
2001: *Giants (+11') 14, RAMS 15 Win
There you have it...the World's Greatest NFL System...
Enjoy,
dave
It was 1983, and at the ripe age of 20 I was in my 4th year of learning the art of Handicapping the NFL. Some of my earliest impressions were formed from articles by Ed Horowitz and Gary Austin. Although Ed 'the Professor' was primarily a statistical capper, it was his technical articles that intriqued me the most. It took me a while, but I eventually grasped the idea that the final score very rarely reflects the statistics due to the many variables. At that point, I understood that a lot of things go on in a game, and that I was eager to get those things 'on my side'.
Among some of the research Ed and Gary printed was a quite simple system: Go Against any NFL team that scored 30 points or more in each of their last two games. I remember back then it was fairly successful, but given a 20-year data base right now, I doubt it's better than 50%. But it nevertheless shaped my thinking. At that point I began to realize that how teams score is somewhat irrelevant. Likewise, how they give up points was also virtually irrelevant.
Why? Because you don't get paid on yardage, you get paid on the final score. That is what intrigued me about some of Ed's ideas in regard to magic number systems using numbers like 30 and other systems using numbers like 10, or single digits, or zero. Over the years, there have been multitudes of variations of the 30-30 including going against teams that scored 70+ in the last two or 90+ in the last three. Man, the Rams alone would've eaten your lunch with that.
It's a different ball game now, but in 1983, just out of high school and living in a boarding house by choice, I uncovered a nugget through my usual research that lives on today. A simple nugget from the old school, I wondered what would happen if I combined those magic numbers of 30 and 10. In other words, how would a team respond if they scored 30 or more in each of their last two games AND allowed 10 or less in each of those same two games? I called it a "double peak". To me, those numbers respresented a 'team peak', and surely if a team accomplished that back to back, they would let down.
Remember, my thinking was that it is irrelevant how teams scored or how they allowed points. In other words, a statistical analysts would insist that scoring 30 back to back was not necessarity a 'double peak' offensively. Their defense could've scored 3 TD's while their offense actually struggled (and therefore did not peak). Likewise, their defense allowing only 10 points or less did not necessarily mean they "peaked". Heck, they could've given up 400 yards and still allowed only 10 points (and therefore, technically, I could not label it a defensive peak). That was the argument and it made sense, but only for a short time.
Then it dawned on me. If I go against a team off a 'double-peak' (believing somewhat incorrectly that the points reflect actual output), I am not banking on what this team will do (not do) in regard to 'output' in the first place, I am banking on what this team will do (not do) in regard to the SCOREBOARD. When the final whistle blows, that's all that matters. I could care less if the team I'm going against roles up 600 yards. What does the scoreboard say?
So with those thoughts in mind, I re-defined (for myself) what a peak was. It had nothing to do with output. To me, a "Team Peak" was determined by the Points Scored "IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM". Now that made sense to me. Forget who outplayed who. Which way did the ball bounce? Who got the breaks? If a team gets the breaks and if the ball bounces in their favor two week's in a row to the tune of 30-10 or better, I'm going against them. Since then, I put in a provision that would allow for a safety. So the actual numbers I use are 30-12.
From 1984 through 2000, the System is 17-7 for a healthy 71%. However, I have found that the system is only 50/50 (7-7) in division games, leaving it at a perfect 10-0 in non-division games. That makes perfect sense to me. After a couple peaks, the team is now playing a game of lesser importance. Stands to reason that they would be more inclined to let down in that role.
***GO AGAINST AN NFL TEAM THAT SCORED 30 OR MORE POINTS IN EACH OF THEIR LAST TWO GAMES WHILE ALLOWING ONLY 12 OR LESS POINTS IN THOSE SAME TWO GAMES IF THEY ARE NOW PLAYING A TEAM OUTSIDE OF THEIR DIVISION***
I marketed this sytem in 1987 and printed it in a Nationwide Publication in 1989. I caught some flack from a few services for putting it in print back then. They called me at my house and gave me a hard time, claiming, "that kind of stuff is for 'US'". I said, "Who's 'us'?" And the individual (whom you probably know) hung up. Anyway, I have posted it over the years and especially since 1998 when I started posting on the internet.
You may remember seeing it in 1999 at xxxxxxxxx.com when the Rams -8 fell victim to the system by losing straight up to the Eagles 38-31. Or last year when the Bucs -7 lost straight up to the Jets 21-17. The 10-0 system recently moved to 11-0 a few weeks ago when the Rams -11' were coming off a double peak. They almost lost straight up at home as the Giants gave them all they could handle in the Rams narrow 1-point victory 15-14.
It doesn't come up often (about 1/2 of 1% of all games), but when it does, it's hammer time. Here's the games since 1984...
1985: *DOLPHINS (+4 ) 38, Bears 24 Win
1988: *Eagles (+6) 21, VIKINGS 23 Win
1992: *Oilers (+6) 17, VIKINGS 13 Win
1992: *CHIEFS (+2) 24, Eagles 17 Win
1993: *Bengals (+24) 8, 49ERS 21 Win
1996: *49ers (+6) 20, PACKERS 23 Win
1996: *COWBOYS (-5) 12, Patriots 6 Win
1999: *COLTS (-4') 25, Chiefs 17 Win
1999: *EAGLES (+8) 38, Rams 31 Win
2000: *Jets (+7) 21, BUCCANEERS 17 Win
2001: *Giants (+11') 14, RAMS 15 Win
There you have it...the World's Greatest NFL System...
Enjoy,
dave