Super Bowl props 2014

nevermind i found what i needed... will post tomorrow

Quote: Mission146

I just looked at the Den/Bal season opener, biggest loss in that game was two yards on a run/pass play

That didn't sound right to me at all so I clicked on that games play by play and the very first drive I clicked on showed this play...

3rd and 15 at DEN 46:
(No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning sacked at DEN 40 for -6 yards (T.Suggs).

And these also..

3rd and 10 at BAL 34:
(No Huddle, Shotgun) J.Flacco sacked at BLT 26 for -8 yards (sack split by S.Phillips and W.Woodyard).

1st and 10 at BAL 20:
(Shotgun) J.Flacco sacked at BLT 11 for -9 yards (R.Ayers).

Did you think sacks didn't count for some reason? Larry said only kicking plays were excluded.

Here's what I have so far...

WEEK 1, Bal @ Den---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 2, Den @ NYG---Four Yard Loss
WEEK 3, Oak @ Den---Six Yard Loss
WEEK 4, Phi @ Den---Two Yard Loss
WEEK 5, Den @ DAL---Seventeen Yard Loss
WEEK 6, Jax @ Den---Seven Yard Loss
WEEK 7, Den @ Ind---Eight Yard Loss
WEEK 8, Wash @ Den---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 10, Den @ SD---Ten Yard Loss
WEEK 11, KC @ Den---Seven yard Loss
WEEK 12, Den @ NE---Ten Yard Loss
WEEK 13,

Quote: michael99000

3rd and 15 at DEN 46:
(No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning sacked at DEN 40 for -6 yards (T.Suggs).

Did you think sacks didn't count for some reason? Larry said only kicking plays were excluded.

Let me look again...

This is what I have for the first drive:

15:00 Flacco to Rice -1
14:14 Rice to the left for 3
13:38 Flacco to Stokley for 6
13:10 Koch, Punt

I do see the third and fifteen sack for a six yard loss, now. Problem was, I was scrolling through and just looking for the word, "Loss," and it said there was a sack, but not how many yards were lost. I probably have to re-do all of these now.

Quote: Mission146

Let me look again...

This is what I have for the first drive:

15:00 Flacco to Rice -1
14:14 Rice to the left for 3
13:38 Flacco to Stokley for 6
13:10 Koch, Punt

I do see the third and fifteen sack for a six yard loss, now. Problem was, I was scrolling through and just looking for the word, "Loss," and it said there was a sack, but not how many yards were lost. I probably have to re-do all of these now.

Yes that's correct, I don't think you weren't seeing the yards lost on sacks. The play I pasted above wasn't from the first drive of the game,.. I just meant I randomly chose a drive in the middle of the game and saw that 6 yard loss on a sack.

You'll also see in week 2 that Eli Manning was sacked for a 9 yard loss during the game.

I'd imagine that in most games the largest negative play will be a sack.. If we are excluding special teams plays. Now and then I do see a running back take a handoff and get knocked backwards for 5 or more yards.

Quote: LarryS

Here is a prop that looks too good to be true

what do you think

Which will be more

largest negative play +105

margin of victory -125
(kicking and punting plays dont count)

this is a game with a 2 point spread. What is the average sack...maybe 5 yards? Is it far fetched to see a 7-8 yard loss?

Here's the problem with your reasoning... point spreads are medians. Not means. You can't equate the spread with the expected margin of victory. I would definitely take the margin of victory side of this if it were -110 on both.

here is mine

format name of opponent/actual score differential/biggest loss

carolina/5/13
SF/26/11
jACKSONVILLE/28/8
Houston/3/10
Indy/6/12
tenn/7/4
ariz/12/14
stl/5/10
tampa/3/11
atlanta/23/8
minny/21/12
N.O/27/8
SF/2/12
nyg/23/12
ariz/7/10
stl/18/10
N.o./8/8
sf/6/11

The key here is that the biggest loss on average seems to be over 10 by either a sack or lost ground on a pass or run play ave 10.9

Here's what I have so far...

WEEK 1, Bal @ Den---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 2, Den @ NYG---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 3, Oak @ Den---Six Yard Loss
WEEK 4, Phi @ Den---Two Yard Loss
WEEK 5, Den @ DAL---Seventeen Yard Loss
WEEK 6, Jax @ Den---Seven Yard Loss
WEEK 7, Den @ Ind---Eight Yard Loss
WEEK 8, Wash @ Den---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 10, Den @ SD---Ten Yard Loss
WEEK 11, KC @ Den---Seven yard Loss
WEEK 12, Den @ NE---Ten Yard Loss
WEEK 13, Den @ KC---Five Yard Loss
WEEK 14, TEN @ Den---Eleven (Fourteen?) Yard Loss...There was a Pass for -14, but ended up being a fumble, so I don't know how that would go.
WEEK 15, SD @ DEN---Twelve Yard Loss
WEEK 16, Den @ Hou---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 17, Den @ Oak---Nine Yard Loss

140/16 = 8.75

I think those are all right, but additional confirmation is always welcome.

Quote: LarryS

Here is a prop that looks too good to be true

what do you think

Which will be more

largest negative play +105

margin of victory -125
(kicking and punting plays dont count)

this is a game with a 2 point spread. What is the average sack...maybe 5 yards? Is it far fetched to see a 7-8 yard loss?

I'd like to know how a play resulting in an Intentional Grounding call is handled for the purpose of this prop.

It's a penalty, which I'd think excludes it, but it's technically a negative play because theres a loss of down associated with it (unlike with all other penalties). These type of plays can easily be 15 yard losses

Quote: Mission146

Here's what I have so far...

WEEK 1, Bal @ Den---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 2, Den @ NYG---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 3, Oak @ Den---Six Yard Loss
WEEK 4, Phi @ Den---Two Yard Loss
WEEK 5, Den @ DAL---Seventeen Yard Loss
WEEK 6, Jax @ Den---Seven Yard Loss
WEEK 7, Den @ Ind---Eight Yard Loss
WEEK 8, Wash @ Den---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 10, Den @ SD---Ten Yard Loss
WEEK 11, KC @ Den---Seven yard Loss
WEEK 12, Den @ NE---Ten Yard Loss
WEEK 13, Den @ KC---Five Yard Loss
WEEK 14, TEN @ Den---Eleven (Fourteen?) Yard Loss...There was a Pass for -14, but ended up being a fumble, so I don't know how that would go.
WEEK 15, SD @ DEN---Twelve Yard Loss
WEEK 16, Den @ Hou---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 17, Den @ Oak---Nine Yard Loss

140/16 = 8.75

I think those are all right, but additional confirmation is always welcome.

Based on those findings I'd lean toward the negative play being larger.

The other thing we will notice is that Denver's average points differential (i.e. margin of victory) leads the league at 12.9375 for the regular season and they won (or lost) ten regular seasons games by nine or more.

Seattle's average points differential was second best at 11.625 and they won (or lost) eight games in the regular season by nine or more.

I think the average margin of victory for the entire season given a Spread of x, or less, will be more relevant, though.

Quote: Mission146

I think the average margin of victory for the entire season given a Spread of x, or less, will be more relevant, though.

Exactly. Because I'd say neither team has yet faced an opponent as good as the one they'll face this Sunday.

Quote: LarryS

here is mine

The key here is that the biggest loss on average seems to be over 10 by either a sack or lost ground on a pass or run play

Okay, it looks like an average of 11.5 for Seattle because of that nasty defense, I'd guess, for a combined mean of 20.25/2 = 10.125.

Okay, I'm going to see how teams on Sunday/Monday did in terms of margin of victory for the game, regardless of winner, for point spreads of 3.5, or less.

Quote: Mission146

Here's what I have so far...

WEEK 1, Bal @ Den---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 2, Den @ NYG---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 3, Oak @ Den---Six Yard Loss
WEEK 4, Phi @ Den---Two Yard Loss
WEEK 5, Den @ DAL---Seventeen Yard Loss
WEEK 6, Jax @ Den---Seven Yard Loss
WEEK 7, Den @ Ind---Eight Yard Loss
WEEK 8, Wash @ Den---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 10, Den @ SD---Ten Yard Loss
WEEK 11, KC @ Den---Seven yard Loss
WEEK 12, Den @ NE---Ten Yard Loss
WEEK 13, Den @ KC---Five Yard Loss
WEEK 14, TEN @ Den---Eleven (Fourteen?) Yard Loss...There was a Pass for -14, but ended up being a fumble, so I don't know how that would go.
WEEK 15, SD @ DEN---Twelve Yard Loss
WEEK 16, Den @ Hou---Nine Yard Loss
WEEK 17, Den @ Oak---Nine Yard Loss

140/16 = 8.75

I think those are all right, but additional confirmation is always welcome.

I counted the pass and fumble as you did. That came up once for me too

Anyway as expected when there are weak temas going against seattle...they blow them out and a bet like this would be idiotic

But seattle also blew out teams that were considered to be close to them like SF and NO (at home)

So it comes down to this...if the game plays out accoding to the pointspread....and is close....this bet is a good value. But of course if one team blows out the other ..or wins by over a touchdown.....then there are problems.
I think it will be close..and based on your research above and mine......and -110 payout........I am going with the "loss" being larger than the actual point differential.

games like this can be a blowout one way or the other....I have seen it before....so I dont consider it a safe bet......but worthwile anyway for me.

Format:

Game-Spread-Actual

Week 1:

Atl/NO-3-6
TB/NYJ-3.5-1
KC/Jax-3.5-26
Cin/Chi-3-3
Mia/Cle-PK-13
Sea/Car-3.5-5
NYG/DAL-3.5-5
Phi/Wash-3.5-6
Hou/SD-3.5-3

Running Totals: 7.556 (Nine Games) 2/9 over 10.

Week 2:

Mia/Ind-1-4
Car/Buf-1-1
Dal/KC-3-1
No/TB-3.5-2
Det/Az-1-4
SF/Sea-3-26

Running Totals (7.556 * 9 + 38)/15 = 7.067 (15 Games) 3/15 Over 10.

Week 3:

SD/Ten-3-3
Hou/Bal-1-21
Det/Wash-1-7
Gb/Cin-2.5-4
NYG/Car-1-38
Atl/Mia-1-4
Buf/NYJ-1-7
Chi/Pit-2.5-17

Running Totals (7.067 * 15 + 101)/23 = 9 (23 Games) 6/23 over 10.

Week 4:

Pit/Min-1-7
Bal/Buf-3-3
Sea/Hou-3-3
Arz/TB-1-3
Chi/Det-3-8
NYJ/Ten-3.5-25
Dal/SD-1-9
Wash/Oak-3-10
Ne/Atl-1-7

Running Totals (9 * 23 + 75)/32 = 8.8125 (32 Games) 7/32 over 10.

Week 5:

KC/Ten-1-9
Bal/Mia-2.5-3
NE/Cin-1-7
Sea/Ind-1-6
NO/Chi-PK-8
Phi/NYG-1-15
Car/Arz-1-16

Running Totals: (8.8125 * 32 + 64)/39 = 8.872 (39 Games) 9/39 over 10.

Week 6:

Phi/TB-PK-11
GB/Bal-1-2
Det/Cle-1-14
Car/Min-1-25
Pit/NYJ-1-13
No/NE-1-3
Ind/SD-1-10

Running Totals: (8.872 * 39 + 78)/46 = 9.218 (46 Games) 13/46 over 10

Week 7:

NE/NYJ-3.5-3
Cin/Det-3-3
Chi/Wash-PK-4
Dal/Phi-3-14
Bal/Pit-1.5-3
MIN/NYG-3-16

Running Totals: (9.218 * 46 + 43)/52 = 8.981 (52 Games) 15/52 over 10.

Week 8:

Dal/Det-3-1
Pit/Oak-2.5-3
Atl/Arz-2.5-14

Running Totals: (8.981 * 52 + 18)/55 = 8.8184 (55 Games) 16/55 over 10.

Week 9:

Ten/STL-3-7
KC/BUF-3-10
SD-Wash-1-6
Phi/Oak-2.5-29
Bal/Cle-2.5-6
Ind/Hou-2.5-3

Running Totals: (8.8184 * 55 + 61)/61 = 8.951 (61 Games) 17/61 over 10.

Week 10:

Det/Cle-2.5-2
Cin/Bal-1.5-3
Phi/GB-1-14
Buf/Pit-3-13
Hou/Arz-3-3
Mia/TB-2.5-3

Running Totals: (8.951 * 61 + 38)/67 = 8.717 (67 Games) 19/67 over 10.

Week 11:

SD/Mia-1.5-4
NYJ/BUF-1-23
Atl/TB-1.5-13
Bal/Chi-3-3
Det/Pit-2.5-10
Wash/Phi-3.5-8
SF/NO-3-3
NE/Car-2.5-4

Running Totals: (8.717 * 67 + 68)/75 = 8.694 (75 Games) 21/75 over 10.

Week 12:

NYJ/Bal-3.5-16
Chi/STL-1-21
Pit/Cle-2-16
Ten/Oak-PK-4
Ind/Arz-2.5-29
Dal/NYG-2.5-3
Den/Ne-2.5-3

Running Totals: (8.694 * 75 + 92)/82 = 9.074 (82 Games) 25/82 over 10.

Week 13:

Den/Kc-3.5-7
Chi/Min-1-3
Arz/Phi-3-3
Mia/NYJ-2-20
Atl/Buf-3-3
Cin/SD-1-7
NYG/Wash-1-7

Running Totals: (9.074 * 82 + 50)/89 = 8.922 (89 Games) 26/89 over 10.

Week 14:

Oak/NYJ-3-10
Buf/Tb-2.5-21
Kc/Wash-2.5-35
Mia/Pit-3-6
Car/No-3-18
Det/Phi-2.5-14
Sea/SF-3-2
NYG/SD-3-23
Dal/Chi-1-17

Running Totals: (8.922 * 89 + 146)/98 = 9.592 (98 Games) 32/98 over 10.

Week 15:

Arz/Ten-3-3
Chi/Cle-1-7
Buf/Jax-2-7
Ne/Mia-2.5-4
Cin/Pit-3-10

Running Totals: (9.592 * 98 + 31)/103 = 9.427 (103 Games) 32/103 over 10.

Week 16:

Mia/Buf-2.5-19
No/Car-3-4
Dal/Wash-3-1
Chi/Phi-3-43
Cle/NYJ-2.5-11
NE/Bal-2.5-34

Running Totals: (9.427 * 103 + 112)/109 = 9.936 (109 Games) 36/109 over 10.

Week 17:

GB/Chi-2.5-5
Wash/NYG-3.5-14
Det/Min-3-1
SF/Arz-PK-3

Final Totals

(9.936 * 109 + 23)/113 = 9.788 (113 Games) 37/113

MEAN MARGIN OF VICTORY: 9.788
FREQUENCY OVER 10: (37/113) = 32.743%

Conclusion

In terms of the mean Margin of Victory, I'd say that you'd have a slight advantage on +105 for taking the lost yardage on a play being more. In my personal opinion, where I REALLY like your bet is on the frequency of the margin of victory being more than ten, (mean max yards lost).

Even if I drop it down and include the frequency of a win of seven or more, it's still only brings it up to 57/113 (I believe) which is 50.44% and there were only 4/32 (12.5%) games where the Max Loss was less than seven yards.

If anyone wants any action, i'd be happy to make an EVEN bet and take the margin of victory being bigger.

Let me see if you get any other action, first. I should really seek out wherever LarryS is getting this Line and get me some +105 if I were going to make this bet. I don't know, I'll think about it. This is why (other than looking for Middles) I don't really bet sports.

On the one hand, I am pretty happy with my analysis of the bet and I think my reasoning is sound, but then the ploppy part of my brain kicks in and says, "Yeah, but you think Denver is going to stomp Seattle," and ultimately, if I can't find a nice middle, I very rarely bet much of anything.

I also like the OVER 79.5 for jersey number of first player to score a TD. If anyone likes the under, let me know.

great analysis mission..thanks

Inthe end it could be a blowout but I am counting on not

about 10 years ago the giants and ravens played with 2 of the best defenses in the league..and it was a blowout by 25.

But I am going with the yardage loss on this one. I never bet this prop so I will try it.

One prop that I played for that giants/ravens game that looked too good to be true that is available now...is there will be 3 consequtive scores by one team +140
for "yes".

In that supposed tight ravens/giants game...the ravens blew out the giants...scoring many times in a row, Even last weeks game SF/SEATTLE...2 defensive teams where scoring was going to be at a minimum.....the score was 17-10 sf....and then seattle scored 3 times in a row. Of course there was no prop bet at the time for that game...but it seems to happen more than people think....it is +140 for a reason. But it seems very inviting to the novice bettor(which I was at the time of the giants/ravens game)

Quote: LarryS

great analysis mission..thanks

Inthe end it could be a blowout but I am counting on not

about 10 years ago the giants and ravens played with 2 of the best defenses in the league..and it was a blowout by 25.

But I am going with the yardage loss on this one. I never bet this prop so I will try it.

No problem, I hope that it works out. It was a fortunate thing that I still had those Spreads for the season, I could probably do it for last season, as well, but I'd be very surprised if the total moved out of the 8-10 range, though a change in frequency wouldn't be shocking.

The other prop seems cool, I'd have probably went, "Yes," as well. Scoring begets scoring, that's for sure.

The 2 point spread is ridiculous, but it seems recent superbowls have been tight. Seattle has played bad teams all season, losing to Indy and to a resurgent AZ...and it seemed as if Wilson had lost his mojo around that time. Indeed, whereas Seattle merely beat the NFC's lame, Denver slaughtered them.
This game could be a 2TD loss for seattle.
taking all those points seem like a steal.

I would love to take Den if someone cares to take Sea. I agree with UTH's assessment above.

The Wiz started a pretty interesting discussion on DT here , which includes a link to his prop bet calculator/macro. It's simple to use and has a lot of information, based on the spread and the O/U to calculate a couple dozen lines on props. Pretty neat stuff, Mike, to make it so easy for a know-nothing like me. Thanks!

For those who are interested in the calculator but don't use the other forum, it's at NFL Proposition Bet Calculator. However, those who got involved in the contentious part of the props discussion might want to read there as well.

Quote: Wizard

You're welcome. No, I had to hand enter every score of all 3,718 of those games. Actually, I paid rudeboyoi to do that last few years. No off the shelf data I know of tells you things like whether the first score was a TD or FG.

You may want to try http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams

I'm not sure how far they go back but they have the box scores, including the sequence and type of scoring.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I would love to take Den if someone cares to take Sea. I agree with UTH's assessment above.

Thanks, crazily enough, in another thread, it was pointed out that denver had the easiest schedule and Seattle had 10th toughest.

What's up with that? Denver played NE, Indy, and KC..and the 2012 superbowl champs if they mattered. True, they played NFC east and kicked their butts all over the field. Seattle, on the other hand, had nailbiters with Tampa and Houston. They did kick NO's butt though.

So, aside from giving all the points to Seattle, I wonder what other props to think about. Is there $ on whether Peyton throws over/under 50%?

Quote: UTHfan

They did kick NO's butt though.

Both at home and only high-powered offense they faced. SB is away. Just sayin' :-)

Quote: sodawater

I also like the OVER 79.5 for jersey number of first player to score a TD. If anyone likes the under, let me know.

I'd take the other side on this one.

although, high powered offense NO may have been an illusion because the NFC south was weak.

Quote: UTHfan

Thanks, crazily enough, in another thread, it was pointed out that denver had the easiest schedule and Seattle had 10th toughest.

What's up with that? Denver played NE, Indy, and KC..and the 2012 superbowl champs if they mattered. True, they played NFC east and kicked their butts all over the field. Seattle, on the other hand, had nailbiters with Tampa and Houston. They did kick NO's butt though.

So, aside from giving all the points to Seattle, I wonder what other props to think about. Is there $ on whether Peyton throws over/under 50%?

it was this thread and the link was provided

:"whats up with that"....I dont know...those are the facts....dont let the facts get in the way of being a fan. But this is a gambling thead.....not the rah rah I am a denver fan thread. You are bragging that denver played KC?,,,,kc was proven to be a pretender that only could beat poor teams. Heck they only beat houston at home by 1 point...thats how good they are. Sandiego had the second easiest schedule, Oakland is a mess. And Denver fattened up on them.

Legit I believe, but all grouped stats fail in some respect. SEA and DEN both beat all the teams they faced except IND who beat both of them.

yeah, but I would say I am more of a rah-rah anti-seattle fan.

Quote: chickenman

Legit I believe, but all grouped stats fail in some respect. SEA and DEN both beat all the teams they faced except IND who beat both of them.

Seattle had to go to OT against this mighty opponent in a road game.

This was a major mismatch on paper. Seattle had won 11 straight home games and was 7-1. The Buccaneers came in 0-7 and were very thankful that Jacksonville kept them from being mocked weekly as the worst team in the NFL.

Seattle beat Jacksonville much more convincingly than Denver did.

Quote: UTHfan

Seattle has played bad teams all season, losing to Indy and to a resurgent AZ...and it seemed as if Wilson had lost his mojo around that time

One number which disagrees: Strength of Schedule, SoS from pro-football-reference:

Seattle 1.4 (10th)
Denver -1.6 (25th)

Quote: 1arrowheaddr

Seattle beat Jacksonville much more convincingly than Denver did.

Keep using that sort of analysis and you will have The Little Sisters of the Poor winning the Super Bowl.

Or at the very least, having Tampa Bowl Super Bowl worthy as it took Seattle OT to beat them.

FWIW, wikipedia says

"To this date, a safety has been scored in the Super Bowl eight times, or one every 5.88 Super Bowls"

which is significantly more than games in general. Could a safety be systematically more probable when two excellent teams play? Or do we chalk this up to a much smaller sample size of games?

Let the arguments begin. I'll still mentally lay the -800. But maybe for not quite so much :-)

Darth

Quote: darthvader

FWIW, wikipedia says

"To this date, a safety has been scored in the Super Bowl eight times, or one every 5.88 Super Bowls"

which is significantly more than games in general. Could a safety be systematically more probable when two excellent teams play? Or do we chalk this up to a much smaller sample size of games?

Let the arguments begin. I'll still mentally lay the -800. But maybe for not quite so much :-)

Darth

You could do the sums to work out the likely hood of having 8 safeties in 47 superbowls with a strike rate of 1 in 17 (overall average).

8 or more safeties in 47 attempts at a strike rate of 1 in 17 -> 0.5278%. (using the binomial distribution function in Excel).

Or I screwed up.

Quote: darthvader

FWIW, wikipedia says

"To this date, a safety has been scored in the Super Bowl eight times, or one every 5.88 Super Bowls"

which is significantly more than games in general. Could a safety be systematically more probable when two excellent teams play? Or do we chalk this up to a much smaller sample size of games?

Let the arguments begin. I'll still mentally lay the -800. But maybe for not quite so much :-)

Darth

I will guess and give my opinion.

In a game with so much at stake, possibly when there is a punt, a line drive or odd looking kick, . .....the offensive player might let it bounce instead of muffing the catch, and the ball gets downed by the defense at the 2 yard line. Presenting the opportunity for a safety.The fear of screwing up and costing your team the game may take place.

Also you may get a game with 2 top of the line punters who can angle a kick to inside the 10. Maybe having 2 in the SAME game helps to get the ball in position for a safety at least there are double the chance if both teams have an outstanding kicker

thirdly...once on the 2 yardline....the absolute pressure on the offensive line and the QB to get out. Again no one wants to be the cause for a loss....nerves, jitters, trying to do too much on the offensive side.....and absolute fierocity on the defensive side to to get to the QB

who knows...its just a guess....I never played the game...

Quote: thecesspit

You could do the sums to work out the likely hood of having 8 safeties in 47 superbowls with a strike rate of 1 in 17 (overall average).

8 or more safeties in 47 attempts at a strike rate of 1 in 17 -> 0.5278%. (using the binomial distribution function in Excel).

Or I screwed up.

The Wizard claimed that the fair line was -1520, which is 1 in 16.2. That corresponds to a probability of 0.76% of getting 8 or more in 47 attempts.

Not that the Wizard ever claimed that the probability was the same in every super bowl ever played, of course, so we need to be careful.

Edit: Here is a good binomial distribution calculator: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Gee, has the game changed any since the Bears scored a safety in 1986 ? DUH !

Quote: Buzzard

Gee, has the game changed any since the Bears scored a safety in 1986 ? DUH !

But, many of the safeties have come recently.

Do the changes to the game make safeties more likely? We really don't have enough data to be sure.

I agree, but surely the fact that more kickoffs are not returned now, must have some impact. I still think -600 would be a GREAT bet.
and -800 ain't that bad either. LOL

I still like my +1000 on the YES :D

Quote: thecesspit

You could do the sums to work out the likely hood of having 8 safeties in 47 superbowls with a strike rate of 1 in 17 (overall average).

8 or more safeties in 47 attempts at a strike rate of 1 in 17 -> 0.5278%. (using the binomial distribution function in Excel).

Or I screwed up.

A different analysis, simplified.

If no safety, then 8/48 Superbowls have scored a safety. 1/6*0.95 = ~ -630
If YES then 9/48 Suberbowls have scored a safety 16/3*0.95 =~ +505

Gee 47 games versus thousands of games. Just because they say it's SUPER , don't make it so. LOL

Quote: Buzzard

Gee 47 games versus thousands of games. Just because they say it's SUPER , don't make it so. LOL

The point raised here is a good one though. If the probability of a safety is equally low in a super bowl as in a regular season game, then the number of safeties we have seen in super bowls would be a fairly unlikely aberration.

There is no good reason to discard one set of data and embrace the other one.

Here's my take... Super Bowls tend to feature excellent pass-rush defenses. In addition, pass rushers in the Super Bowl are going full throttle almost every play, as opposed to meaningless regular season games where some plays are taken off. This probably makes a safety much more likely than a normal game.

I would say that -800 is still a good bet, but I don't think the fair price is anywhere near -1500.

Anybody see a trend here concerning " Defense Wins Championships " ? Pretty obvious NFL now rewards Offense.

Average Defensive Rank

Category

Since 1978 Since 2004 Since 2009

Playoff Teams 11.1 12.4 13.2


Super Bowl Teams 9.3 12.3 14.8



Super Bowl Champions 7.7 12.9 18.5


More info on this link but the above numbers seem pretty obvious to me.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nfl/does-offense-or-defense-win-super-bowl-championships.aspx

"Defense wins championships" is nonsense. I'm not sure that it was ever true, but it's definitely true now.

Having said that, I believe that the media (and the public) often overvalue good offenses, so I often try to find value in betting good defensive teams. I think that this is particularly true in the playoffs, when lots of public money gets bet on popular teams. Just like the favorite and the over tend to get over-bet.

Quote: Buzzard

I agree, but surely the fact that more kickoffs are not returned now, must have some impact. I still think -600 would be a GREAT bet.
and -800 ain't that bad either. LOL

what does kickoff returns have to do with it.

all the kickoffs that fly 5 yards out of the endzone, or to the back of the endzone would not have been fielded and gone into the endzone anyway.
Its the punting that places the balls inside the 10 yardline.

Punting hasnt changed except maybe they are getting more accurate over the years.

really, how many kickoffs would be returned well inside the 10 yard line.