[NFL] Free Analysis: Week 11 and Season Recap

Week 11 and Season Recap

Mike O’Connor’s had horrible results on his 8 NFL Best Bets for week 11, as they went just 1-4-3 for -8.0 Stars. But, as has been the case all season, his handicapping was better than his record.

The week started with a Thursday night push with 2-Stars on Tennessee +3 at -120 odds. The Titans actually outplayed the Colts 6.3 yards per play to 5.6 yppl (not including kneel downs) but lost a possession when they fumbled a kickoff that resulted in a quick touchdown for the Colts right after Indy had scored to pull within 4. So a 17-6 lead turned quickly twisted into a 17-20 deficit. Tennessee scored late in the 4^th to gain the push but this was a pretty solid play given that Tennessee averaged more yards per play and pushed the spread despite a negative turnover differential. But, despite the advantage in yards per play I’ll log it as a tossup game.

The Sunday plays were a disaster aside from the 3-Star win on Denver, as the Jets (3-Stars) turned a -4 turnover differential into a 14-37 loss despite being outplayed just 4.8 yppl to 4.9 yppl. The Jets rookie quarterback is turnover prone and even though -4 in turnovers is impossible to predict this game was certainly a deserved loss despite the even stats.

The Baltimore at Chicago game featured a 3-Star Best Bet on the Bears -3 and a 2-Star Under 41 points and it looked like the side would push and the total would win when it was 20-17 Bears in the final minute. But, an incredible one-handed catch on 4^th down kept the Raven’s last drive going and they kicked a field goal with 3 seconds left to force overtime. The Bears ended up winning by 3, so we got the push on the side but the total went from a win to a loss. Chicago was a solid play here given that the Bears averaged 5.7 yppl to Baltimore’s 4.2 yppl and the total certainly was a toss-up game that lost, so it was bad luck to go 0-1-1 on those two plays.

The 2-Star on the Cincinnati-Cleveland Under 40 ½ points was doomed by 3 non-offensive touchdowns and those 21 points was the difference as the offenses scored 40 total points. The two teams combined for only 555 total yards and 4.1 yards per play (despite 74 yards coming on one play), which would normally result in about 34 total points, so this actually was not a bad play at all and would have likely gone under without all the random non-offensive touchdowns.

The 3-Star on San Francisco +3 at even money was actually lucky to push, as the Niners were outplayed 3.5 yppl to 5.8 yppl. It actually looked like we might get a rare lucky when San Francisco had the lead and forced a fumble in the 4^thquarter but the play was ruled an illegal hit, which was certainly a questionable call after watching the replay (looked like he hit the shoulder pad and not the neck), and the Saints scored on that drive to tie the game. That would have been a lucky win but this one will go down in the ledger as a lucky push, which makes up for Chicago dominating Baltimore 5.7 yppl to 4.2 yppl and getting a push in that game. I heard from a number of clients that said they got +3 ½ and won that game and +3 ½ was certainly available, but it was released at +3 at even money and will officially be graded as a push.

The 3-Star Best Bet on Green Bay +6 wasn’t a bad bet either given that the Packers outgained the Giants 394 yards at 7.3 yppl to 334 yards at 5.3 yppl. Normally, a 6 point dog with those stat would not only cover but win the game by more than a touchdown straight up. However, Green Bay was -2 in turnovers and one of those was returned for a touchdown to turn a 7 point deficit into a 13-27 loss. I not going to call that an unlucky loss even though the Packers outplayed the Giants but it’s certainly a toss-up game that lost.

The Sunday night 3-Star on Denver was a pretty comfortable win, as the Broncos led 27-10 before giving up a touchdown with 5 minutes left in a 27-17 win. Denver outgained Kansas City 427 yards at 5.6 yppl to 344 yards at 4.7 yppl, although they really only averaged 4.4 yppl when you take out the 25 yard run at the end of the first half when Denver had most of their defenders sitting on the goal line waiting for the hail Mary pass. The stats project an 11.4 points win so Denver was a solid play.

The final tally was 1-4-3 but only 2 of those 8 Best Bets were actually bad bets (the Jets and SF). I wouldn’t say Mike did a great job of handicapping in week 11 but he once again had a worse record than he deserved, as losing both totals was certainly undeserved and the Green Bay loss wasn’t a bad bet either. As you probably know by now I keep a spreadsheet of every play and grade the games based on deserved wins/losses, underserved win/losses (i.e. lucky wins and unlucky losses) and toss up games. This week I put Denver in as a deserved win and the Jets as a deserved loss with SF as a lucky push. The other 5 games were all toss-up games and he was 0-3-2 on those 5 toss up games. So, a 1 game under .500 level of handicapping turned into a 3 games under .500 record for the week, which is simply the way Mike’s season has gone this year.

Week 12 Best Bets available on Thursday.

For the season Mike O'Connor's NFL Best Bets are now 22-24-3 and -16.6 Stars but as I chronicled a couple of weeks ago his level of handicapping has actually been as good as his 58% Best Bet percentage over his 8 years as a public handicapper (310-226-16). Mike's performance this season cannot be judged on his record, which is actually pretty good considering how unlucky he's been this year as an average handicapper would be at 40% with the kind of luck Mike has endured.

I have always kept a ledger to grade my Best Bets honestly and over time my graded percentage is the same as my actual winning percentage because the luck tends to even out over a longer time period. However, there are seasons in which variance plays a role in making a handicapper's record considerably better than it should be or considerably worse. I’m not handicapping the NFL personally this season but I keep a log of Mike O’Connor’s NFL Best Bets and grade those games too. You probably already realize this if you’ve been paying attention, but Mike’s record should be much better than 22-24-3 given the bad luck he’s had this season, as his handicapping has been just as good as it’s been over his 8 years hitting 58% while his results this year have been heavily influenced by negative variance.

I have 23 of Mike’s games graded as being on the right side and he’s just 18-5 on those games, which is 5 unlucky losses. I have 15 of Mike’s games graded as being on the wrong side and he’s 1-13-1 on those games, so he’s had just 1 lucky win and a lucky push. I have 11 of Mike’s games graded as toss up games that could have gone either way and he’s just 3-6-2 on those games rather than the 50% that he should be. The complete list of lucky wins and losses and toss up wins and losses is listed below if you want to verify my grading.

The net of it is Mike’s handicapping has graded out at 8 games above .500 yet he’s 2 games below .500. If he won the 23 games that he was on the right side of, lost the 15 games he was on the wrong side of and split the 11 toss-up games then he’s be 27-19-3 rather than 22-24-3. I grade Mike’s handicapping at 58.2% this year, which is at his long term average, but he’s simply had horrible luck this season.

The lesson is to not judge a handicapper solely on his short term record, but rather on his long term record and the circumstances of his short term record should be taken into account, as short term results are subject to variance, both positive and negative, while the variance evens out over time. The season Mike is having reminds me a lot of my 2011 College season, in which I suffered a great deal of negative variance with fumbles (-19) and close games (won just 30%) and finished just 1 game above .500 rather than being 58%, which is what I graded myself at that year. The very next season I was 58.5% handicapping at the same level I did in 2011 but without the negative variance. Variance works both ways and there are years in which Mike or I have won at a higher rate than we handicapped at.

I'm not making excuses for Mike's 48% record so far this season but rather just stating the facts that his handicapping has been as good as it always has been. If Mike continues to handicap at the level he has this season, and over his 8 year career as a public handicapper then he will win going forward just as he's won in the past.

Regardless of whether you think there has been bad luck or not, Mike O’Connor is certainly still likely to win going forward given his 58% career win percentage in 8 years as a public handicapper, so don’t give up on him just because he hasn’t won so far this season. A few weeks ago I was at 24-24-1 on my College Football Best Bets and now I’m comfortably profitable after winning 11 of my last 14 Best Bets. There is no reason Mike can’t do the same thing.