tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204092591876211047.post1397548148739710194..comments2023-03-23T07:34:12.473-04:00Comments on Advanced NFL Stats Community: Do Good Teams Win Close Games? Part 2: Overtime GamesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204092591876211047.post-49637235844811889042010-12-12T03:56:42.479-05:002010-12-12T03:56:42.479-05:00Jim,re home field advantage.
If you've got a v...Jim,re home field advantage.<br />If you've got a very slightly superior pythag team on the road against a very slightly inferior pythag team.Which team are you counting as the better team?domnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204092591876211047.post-78840009616961134802010-12-12T03:17:45.640-05:002010-12-12T03:17:45.640-05:00Great post. And it has practical significance too....Great post. And it has practical significance too. Whatever the true answer really is, knowing what shot your team has in OT would make the difference in coaching decisions at the end of close games. For example,<br />kick the FG to tie/go for the TD to win <br />kick the XP to tie/go for 2pt conv to winBrian Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204092591876211047.post-13225718930606742812010-12-11T20:29:59.152-05:002010-12-11T20:29:59.152-05:00dom, thanks for the comment, I'll check it out...dom, thanks for the comment, I'll check it out. Until then, three points...<br /><br />1) Different samples. I thought of going back all the way to 1974 when OT was instituted, but as this is practical analysis I stuck to ten years (considering for instance the way the rules of both play and building teams change over time). That is, if one expects to see something this Sunday it should be visible within the last 10 years.<br /><br />I didn't say the better team has *no* advantage in OT games, but that any advantage being invisible during the last 10 years, OT games can be deemed "*effectively* determined entirely by chance".<br /><br />As I noted, the best team <em>should</em> have an advantage, in principle. For the record, the theoretical advantage is given by a "Pythagorean" using an exponent of 1.18, <a href="http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol6/iss2/1/" rel="nofollow">as per here</a>.<br /><br />2) Different methodologies. Point spreads set before games should have a significantly larger error margin than those calculated after all games are played using full information for the entire season. E.g., point spreads would be calculated after only 2 games, 8 games, etc., and reflect possible systematic errors by wagerers, especially early in the season, while the SRS numbers I used are calculated post-season. There's a lot more uncertainty in ex-ante than ex-post data.<br /><br />3) Different purpose. I actually believe that the better team does have an advantage in close games -- if I just wanted to confirm theory I wouldn't bother with any of this, I've no need to re-invent the wheel. But the key issue is <em>perspective</em>, and practical consequences. Here's what I mean:<br /><br />In baseball with its vast data base the better team's edge in close games is well documented, <a href="http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-about-one-run-games/" rel="nofollow">for instance</a>.<br /><br />Yet still, it is so slight in applied terms that close-game records diverge so far from other-game records (1935 Yankess, 15-29 in one-run games, 74-31 in others; 1974 Padres 31-16, 29-86 in others), and teams with over-50% wins in them regress so consistently (and the reverse) it's caused Bill James to say that for all <em>practical</em> purposes -- game strategy, judging team results, designing a team, wagering with your local bookie -- record in one-run games should be considered determined entirely by luck. There's nothing practical you can do based on it <em>at all</em>, relying on it will only mislead.<br /><br />Similarly, the NFL coach with the best record all-time in one-score games (60+ games total) is Vince Tobin, 15-5 versus 13-38 in other games. Dick Jauron got a new contract, then a new job for being Coach of the Year in 2001 for going 8-0 in one-score games -- his other nine seasons were all losers. While the Walsh 49ers were 42% in one-score games, the Lombardi Packers were 50% ... and the best teams at winning close games during the past 15 years went only 8-9 in the playoffs, while close-game losers went 78% and won three Super Bowls (as <a href="http://community.advancednflstats.com/2010/12/is-close-game-clutch-play-story.html" rel="nofollow">noted earlier</a>).<br /><br />So my gist is, when <em>zero</em> evidence of advantage for better teams in close games is visible in the combined careers of Walsh and Lombardi (and Tobin), 10 years of OT games and all the rest, then for all practical purposes -- game strategy, team design, predicting performance, betting -- such close games should be considered effectively determined entirely by chance. <br /><br />Whatever slight advantage may exist as per theory is so tiny nobody can do anything with it at all, so it effectively doesn't exist. Perhaps that's a point of philosophy. :-)<br /><br />One person's opinion, your mileage may vary.<br /><br />BTW, you do give rise to a question I haven't seen answered yet: the relative accuracy of point spread predictions v Pythagorean calculations after the fact. That goes on the "to do" list.Jim Glassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204092591876211047.post-40623449852452333572010-12-11T15:53:34.140-05:002010-12-11T15:53:34.140-05:00Jim,check out this community post from last year.I...Jim,check out this community post from last year.It concludes that better teams do beat their lesser rivals more often in OT games.<br /><br />http://community.advancednflstats.com/2009/10/game-of-two-halves.html<br /><br />I've just checked all OT games from 2000 onwards and the better pre game team,as measured by the Vegas line won OT games 57% of the time.domnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204092591876211047.post-10689761137459431802010-12-11T13:04:05.886-05:002010-12-11T13:04:05.886-05:00Double dose of "luck"?
There's a to...Double dose of "luck"?<br /><br />There's a totally random coin flip to determine who gets the ball first, then the NFL randomness luck is added.<br /><br />Maybe you've already done this, but I wonder how it would look as fav vs dog broken down by who gets the coin flip.Bruce D.http://i60200nfl.clanteam.comnoreply@blogger.com