Handicapping The NFL - Part 3a

Part 3a: Variable weekly factors:

So far this series of articles has covered how to make a basic line from what you and others think of a team based on past performance. This week I'm going to look at how variables can change that line. It may get a little trickier here if you're making lines in terms of 3-7-10-14-17 as some of the things (as you'll see) are only small. You'll have to use a little common sense if you're staying with that system for now as it's based on "slight advantage" and "clear advantage" wording.

The week number:

I haven't touched on totals yet but it should be noted that typically the offense takes longer to get into gear than the defense. What that means to us is that games are lower scoring in the first two or three weeks and therefore a little closer. This used to be a license to print money on the totals but there are good arguments now that it's factored into the line. With a sample size of sixteen games a season, it's difficult to know for sure, but when you're deciding between two lines it's best to err on the side of the closer game at the start of the year.

Although I'm dealing with handicap lines, it should also be noted that at the start of the season the level of uncertainty is higher. All a handicap line tries to do is pick the point at which both teams would win half of the time. However the distance by which this tends to be off will be greater at the start of the season, even if it still splits the 50% mark.
Week one last year, Atlanta were three point home underdogs to Detroit. Of course that three points implies that Detroit are clearly the better team if you're using my beginners method (seven point favourites dropped down to three for being away from home) when that's clearly ridiculous with the benefit of hindsight. There's nothing wrong with the method there; people really thought Detroit were better than Atlanta.
What we can learn from that (and dozens of examples like it of course.) is that sometimes the three-point start is worth more than others. The high amount of uncertainty at the start of the season about how teams will gel together means that there is often value on the moneyline rather than the handicap line.

Injuries:

If I told you that I raced Usain Bolt and he beat me 10-0 you probably wouldn't have much cause to doubt me. If I told you that he beat me 10-6 you'd likely laugh in my face. Well laugh it up while you can, because if I ever meet him I'm going to ask him for a race and we're going to score one point for every ten yards we can run in ten seconds.

The above illustration makes two points that you simply must keep in mind if you're going to price up nearly any sport.

i) All Human beings are built the same

The specification for a human being is incredibly tight. Most twenty two year old men can run the same speed as the fastest man in the world, give or take 25%.
To get to the NFL, A player in a position comes through tens of thousands of fairly similar high school kids to get a position in one of just over a hundred division I college teams and is eventually drafted into an already existing pool of NFL players. Only a handful of the original players get to the NFL.
We're all guilty of it, and I have no intention to change, but you should bear in mind at all times what you're saying or reading with regards to statements such as "Kurt Warner is miles better than Tavaris Jackson." or "Ryan Fitzpatrick is awful."
The truth is that in the context of the NFL, which is where those statements usually appear, then they're likely true. In the context of the bigger picture then those players are all about the same.

ii) The scoring system is arbitrary

When you read my Usain Bolt example above, it's likely you assumed we had a series of races and the fastest time in each race scored a point. That's because that's a well-established and sensible method for determining who is the best at something. There's nothing wrong with my second scoreline either though. That also determines who is the best in the example given.
Under one system I never score a point, under another system it looks quite close. Sports have a habit of making small differences look big, but they're still small differences.

Where I'm going with this is likely obvious now, and ties in with something you may have noticed in part two where I lumped all O-line players in together. Backup players are likely better than you're giving them credit for.



Other than the quarterback, who not only plays the game but often controls tactics and builds up a level of "feel" for where all his players are going to be, nearly all other players don't have a massive impact on the game.
There are some teams who have built their plays around one or two specific players. The Eagles and Westbrook spring to mind. He's so versatile that when he's missing the difference is very noticeable indeed. Jackson of the Rams is another game changer.
You can likely rattle off twenty more such players. It's my belief that twenty is too many. There will be more than those two, but it won't be ten.
In almost all cases other than the quarterback and the two players above, the impact on my line of an injury is less than a point. That's not to say that I don't look into injuries to make sure the backup is a capable player, it certainly happens that teams run out of people who play a position and have to then put in a player out of position and obviously you want your best available players on the field at all times, but unless a team is decimated then be careful how much importance you assign to an injury. That's not to say you assign no importance to it, especially as there are often multiple injuries on a team at any one time, but it is a common mistake by nearly all beginners to overreact to injuries.

Just to highlight that you should still be on your toes, sometimes an injury can be a tipping point. When Denver played the Patriots last season, they were just about hanging on until Champ Bailey was injured towards the end of the first half. Dre Bly was then left with the job of covering Moss and he was simply overmatched. If Cassel had thrown the ball in the air for just those two to fight over a hundred times, Bly might have come down with none of them. He wasn't physically good enough (he's six inches shorter) and the team weren't prepared for him doing the task. On this occasion, the fact that one player was a bit better than the other was in an area where it really mattered. If a guy can't stop another guy from catching a ball in the end zone then, under the scoring system they use, he has a problem.

Injuries to quarterbacks are harder to assess. A backup quarterback, especially one who hasn't played for a year or two, can be at almost any stage of understanding with the team. Some seem to thrive on the opportunity and some seem to struggle with nerves. To some degree they're at the mercy of the head coach and his game plan (I'll talk about game planning next time).

If the backup is a better-known player then you can research their abilities, likely game plans, previous games played, temperament and make a line based on those things. Fan sites and training reports become a lot more important.
In the case of a backup who hasn't started before, or for a long time, I'll be honest with you and admit that I just swerve those games. I price them up but I almost never bet them. The amount of research you can actually do versus the amount of facts that other people know is just too big a gulf. There is a minimum level of skill you can assume though. If the line assumes they're even worse than the worst backup you can remember seeing, you can bet on the team with some success but other than that, you're on your own on that specific example.

That's rather a lot of words to make a couple of simple points, but if you come out of reading this article knowing that the value of three points can change and that you were giving too much weight to random injuries, then it was worth me writing and worth you reading.

Next time I'm going to continue with the weekly variables and talk about game planning and relative strengths and weaknesses.

Lori