Handicapping The NFL Part 3b: Variable weekly factors continued

When I warned at the start of the series that the articles by their nature would zig-zag around a bit, this was one of the parts I had in mind. Although it's logical to put this part here, it makes sense to discuss it partially in the context of under/over totals betting which I haven't yet covered, however to delay it would be to separate it from the importance of handicapping for the individual game, which I haven't yet finished. At some point in the future therefore I'll probably refer to this article in relation to totals betting.

Game planning:

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to the importance of coaches and each one probably misses some of the merits of the other.
Firstly are those that will say "Coach xyz is a clown, who let him coach a team?" and opposing that are those who say "Coach xyz is paid millions a year, what makes you think you could do better?"

It has been shown time and again in American sports (where stats are more freely available and more useful than in other sports) that there are numerous geeks (and gamblers) who know the impact of a coach's decisions better than the coach does. Some coaches, such as Belichick seem to not only understand this but likely employ said geeks to research things for them; others, such as Crennel have probably never even heard of geeks.



You can maybe allow a little for coaching ability, but it's not much. That's not where I'm going on this occasion anyway. What I'd like to point out is that the teams all have a team of people and a week to prepare for each opponent. Whatever the merits of the individual coaches during the game, it is wise to assume that they are at least entering the game with a logical game plan that maximizes their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses. This may not be the case 100% of the time, but there comes a point where you just have to assume that a coach being paid millions and taking the advice of a staff that is also paid millions is at least going to enter the game with some idea of what he's trying to achieve. How he responds under the speed and pressure of the game is what defines the clowns - at least to us geeks and gamblers.

When I get to the game planning part of my week, I usually have some idea of what spread and total I'm considering. This part sometimes blows that entirely out of the water.
With that in mind, you might suggest that I should consider the game plan earlier, but the strange thing is that you can't consider the game plans until you know how likely it is that the two teams are going to win. It is here that you learn why in many sports the favourite is overrated. The underdog usually has control over how the game is played tactically.

That's a bit of a claim to make so I had better try to back it up. The example that makes it most clear was a team pursuit cycling race between Great Britain and Australia a few years ago, before Great Britain were the best at it.
The Australian team had been a steady two or three seconds faster than the Brits throughout the qualifying stages and the British team were huge underdogs for the final.
However the Brits decided to pick a higher gear than they were used to and if they could keep up with the new workload they projected to win the race. For Australia however the correct strategy was to carry on cycling their best and hope that Britain's gamble didn't pay off. There was no point them making things harder for themselves as they were still the likely winners but Britain had changed their odds from "no chance" to "can win if they ride the race of their lives".
What actually happened is that the British cyclists couldn't handle the higher gear and were destroyed. Just because they lost by more than they would have doesn't mean they didn't raise their chances of winning. It's an important concept in gambling.

The reason that this applies so strongly in the NFL is that there is a lot of scope for strategy changes. I therefore approach thinking about game plans by firstly assuming that they're going to be logical (for reasons above) and then by working out the underdog's game plan first. If the game is a field goal or closer on my handicapping when I go into the game plans, I assume that both teams will play their best game. That is to simply play to their strengths and opponent's weaknesses.

For games that have a clear underdog though, there are some tried and tested game plans that will make a difference. The first one I look for is to see whether they can establish the running game early and kill the clock. Game announcers refer to this as "keeping the ball out of the opponent's hands" but more accurately it lowers the number of possessions each team gets and so raises the chances of the underdogs getting lucky. If you believe that the underdogs have a reasonable chance of establishing the run, you should certainly narrow the gap between the two teams and you should even more certainly lower the points total for the game.

If you don't believe they have much chance of running the ball then obviously you have to see how they can do by passing it. If they can possibly take their chance in a shootout then raising the total is a must although on average they'll probably lose by more points than you'd expect (due to a higher number of possessions per team. If one team is likely to score one point more on every possession, then on average if each team has more possessions, they'll win by more points).

If you still think they've got problems then they're going to have to do something on defense. Against a younger quarterback one of the options is to stack the line and to "make the quarterback win it".
Also when teams have apparently no chance on the offense, they tend to revert to at least trying to run out the clock. If you're putting a points total on the game you should lower just a touch in these situations in case they manage to keep it close for a quarter or so. It's amazing how quick the time goes if the team grinding away does get a few first downs by running four yards a play.

These are by no means the only plans but they're ones I consider first. Each matchup is different and if a team is known for a particular weak point or outstanding strength then you can assume that this will be worked on.

When considering the favourite's game plan, you first have to have the confidence that you've got the underdog's one right (you'll get better with practise) and then assume the favourites will react to that.
A large amount of the time there's not much they can do other than bring their best game within the constraints the opponent has put upon them. The rest of the time I can only help with "you'll know it when you see it" rather than give blathering examples.

Treating the lines as a unit:

I touched on why I do this last week but ended up drifting off into space or something, so I thought I'd clear this up here.
When assessing the interactions of teams I find it helpful to think of "Team A has a strong offensive line" and "Team B has an average defensive line" rather than look at each individual player matchup.
This lowers the amount of work I have to do, and as the coaches will deal with line problems in a logical fashion it's very rare that a specific matchup will make a huge enough difference for a non-computerised handicapper to be able to assess accurately enough to register on the scale. If you spot such a matchup then apply it, but in general I find it's enough to keep an eye on the strength of the lines and make sure all the best players are playing (both when writing up previous games and assessing new ones). A lot of the time you'll be capping based on a team preventing the run or the pass and you'll change the likely strength of the line accordingly anyway. Other times you'll know that the defense gets a lot of sacks and that the offense allows a lot of sacks and you'll just assume there will be a lot of sacks.
 
This brings me onto one final thing about assessing weekly matchups and strengths,

Which stats are relevant?

The answer to this is that most stats are both relevant and overused. It's all about context.
A terrible team may well put up high passing yardage stats because they're always throwing deep late in the game. A good team may have a low average run yards per play because they're killing the clock. A really good running team may have better average passing stats because the opponents are concentrating on the run defense.
That being said, if you've kept notes on past games you'll know what you expect the stats to look like and why. The stats can soon highlight inaccuracies in your notes and if they don't tie in to what you think they should be you can compare your weekly notes with the weekly stats and see if there's something you're consistently missing.

Lori