In Week Eight, the Rams were pointspread favorites for the first time in 43 games. Before being three-point favorites vs. the Panthers on Sunday, they were last favored on Dec. 2, 2007, vs. the Falcons, who were then coached by — remember him? — Bobby Petrino.
The Rams, laying a field goal, prevailed against the Falcons. And they took care of business Sunday, defeating Carolina 20-10, which simply strengthens my long-standing belief that if a team hasn't been favored in 43 consecutive games but is favored in game No. 44, it is time to go to the windows with two wallets, a fanny pack and some form of barter.
I love historical handicapping data — some may call it trivia — like that. And like this: The Raiders had failed to cover 12 consecutive times as favorites dating back to 2005 until covering vs. Seattle in Week Eight. (If you love such data, Art Edelstein compiles statistics like this for every game each week in his "Trends and Tips" feature for PFW's online Handicapping Inner Circle.)
I will smile broadly when I unearth or learn such statistics, I will gesture excitedly as I share them with colleagues, and I will file the data away. Then, the question is: Will I use them when picking games against the spread? In short, when is handicapping history useful — or just trivial?
Handicappers will have their own rules for determining the relevance of historical data, and some may not consider them at all in their decision making, but here are guidelines I apply when deciding to use, or discard, such information. The guidelines apply to season-by-season comparisons of teams or a particular head-to-head matchup.
Factors that make me strongly consider using a historical trend or tip:
1. The trend has worked before — and I believe it will work again. Note the ones that work for you. I had applied the Raiders' statistic cited above with success before Oakland's Week Eight rout ended that.
2. The team in question has had sustained organizational stability and/or has maintained a consistent approach over the years. The obvious examples on the positive side of the ledger are the Colts, Patriots and Steelers, with the Ravens, Eagles and Titans also getting high marks in this regard. On the flip side, we have the Raiders, who have not made the playoffs since 2002 and have made some of the same mistakes over and over again. Consistency, good or bad, is what I like to see.
3. The team in question has had sustained stability at quarterback. An obvious one, of course, but important. (And you can see where this guideline can work hand-in-hand with the organizational-stability guideline.) For example, if I'm looking at a historical statistic involving the Browns, I may have to look up who their starting quarterback was in a given season; alas, I have no such issues with the Colts going back to 1998.
4. The team's offensive and/or defensive schemes have remained unchanged for several years. Knowing the basics about a team's offense and defense is vital, and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the schemes can be an edge. For instance, the Steelers have sometimes struggled defending high-powered passing attacks that spread the field.
5. As a general rule, I prefer divisional trends to non-divisional trends. With divisional rivals playing twice each season (and sometimes three times if they square off in the playoffs), there's simply more useful data to analyze.
When a trend or tip usually won't be a primary decision-making factor:
1. It encompasses too many years in a head-to-head matchup. For instance, a statistic on the Bills-Dolphins series going back to when Buffalo ran the "K-Gun" is fun to read, but it's something I'm not going to actively apply in picking a winner.
2. There are special circumstances surrounding some of the games in question. Some of the factors that make me devalue a trend or tip: (a) games played in Week 17; (b) games played with a key player (or players) out of the lineup; (c) games played when a team's form is considerably better or worse than it was the rest of the season; (d) games affected by weather. Record-keeping, as in so many other aspects of life, is crucial here.
3. It encompasses a season in which a team went off form for factors out of its control. Example: The 2007 season was one to forget for the Falcons. Starting QB Michael Vick was suspended for the season, and Petrino resigned after 13 games. The Falcons, who are 5-2 this season, went to the playoffs in 2008 and posted a winning record in '09.
4. It encompasses too few games over too many years. Example: trends involving out-of-conference games pitting teams who play only once every four years.
5. A team's current form has improved or regressed to the point where the trend or tip is no longer as relevant as it once was. Balancing the past and present is imperative.
No comments:
Post a Comment