Finding early value in the NFL
Chad Millman
ESPN Insider
The debt crisis has been averted, which is swell. But the drama clearly ain't over. The chicken little cries that the sky was falling actually came true anyway. It was really hard to miss when I turned on my Internet machine and logged onto the New York Times: Markets down! Worst day since 2008! Global slowdown feared! Seriously, a global slowdown. Not just regional, not just nationwide. We are talking around the whole world the economy is not just sputtering but downright flailing. I know, it's not a newsflash. But when the news comes at you in waves and with such spectacular, visceral fear, it's hard not to think, This is it, another recession. Even the good news of job growth released this morning only caused a minor, albeit early, bounce in stock market gains.
Why, you may ask, do I sound like I just morphed into the idiot brother of Paul freakin' Krugman? Because I happen to have a lot of friends who work in Wall Street and have MBAs and like to sound pretentious by pronouncing the word finance like it's some noble field and not just a legitimized racket (apologies, of course, to my pals, who deserve all the cash they're making).
And I can tell, while all these guys see the Dow tumbling and are probably hedging their bets right now, a lot of them will pour money right back into the market. That's because they see -- all together now -- VALUE!
Here at the blog, column, whatever you want to call it, we preach value-investing every day of the week when it comes to betting. I beg you people to determine what a game or team or season is worth before you see the lines -- using sound logic and maybe some analytics -- so you can pounce the second a number is posted and you see an opportunity. That was particularly true this past week, as many sports books got around to posting their NFL season win totals following a frenzied week of free agency.
<OFFER>
You can't really have this conversation right now without discussing the Iggles. Every time my phone buzzed with a news alert over the weekend it was because Philly was signing someone. I've got a buddy who lives on my block who is a big-time CEO of a major media company. (I have no idea why he is slumming it in my neighborhood, but I promise you his kids have it better than mine.) Like all Eagles fans, he is perpetually pessimistic and sees no good in anything. And yet, he couldn't stop sending me emails, each one more exited than the next, about how high his expectations were for his team. He also happened to be tracking the news from China, where I picture him in a hotel, in the dark, with his phone to his face just waiting for word on more Eagles pickups. Now, if he were smart and truly loved his team, he would have bought the Eagles to win the Super Bowl at 15-1 after the season ended. Because, by the end of the weekend, the odds were at 8-1. Today they are at 6-1, mostly because a lot of squares came in at 8-1. My Wall Street friends scoff at such late-game piling on.
So, where is the value if you still want to bet season win totals? Well, at the Hilton, bookmaker Jeff Sherman tells me the significant moves have been on the Bears (8.5), Bucs (8), Rams (7.5) and Giants (9.5) over. But, he also cautions, that hasn't been based on any handicapper's opinion. It's mostly because other books out there have slightly different totals and wiseguys are playing both sides.
Over at Lucky's, Jimmy Vaccaro reports that he's already moved the Bengals a full game down because he's had so much action on the under. He's also picked up a lot of action on the Cards and Vikes over, thanks to the additions of Messieurs Kolb and McNabb respectively. (Cards to win the division and Cards over Carolina in Week 1 have also gotten some play. Others getting Week 1 interest at Lucky's: Falcons as small faves over the Bears and Vikes, who opened plus-10 against the Chargers.)
The other day on my podcast I spoke with The SportsBoss, a finance professional himself who applies fancy money algorithms to handicapping models. He had the Steelers and Eagles both winning 12 games this year, a slight value on the 10.5 wins being offered by the Hilton. But the number he really liked was, in a contrarian move, Arizona under seven. This was his logic: "I'm not sold on Kolb at all. They won five games last year and I don't see a three-game improvement. They are still poor against the pass in yards per attempt and they traded their best corner in Rodgers-Cromartie. This year they also play non-division games against the NFC East and AFC North, which is tougher than the AFC West from last year. Under seven for the Cards is probably my top play."
I also checked in with Geoff Kulesa, of wunderdogsports.com. He uses a lot of systems and precedent to make his decisions, combined with some old fashioned pythag wins. He told me he liked "the Titans over seven wins and that has plus juice on it, right now. The reason I like that is a couple of things. I have a theme with this, and it's the same as my other stuff: How should they have done last year versus how did they actually do. If you look at them they had the biggest difference of actual wins versus pythag wins. They should have won 8.5 based on points scored and points allowed. Right now they are projected to win seven. According to pythag wins that is 1.5 games less. Also they had a huge change in schedule. They had the toughest schedule last year if you look at the win percentage of teams they played. This year they have the 23rd-easiest schedule, which is a reason they can outperform. They were also in top half of the league in offense and defense last year, that is consistent with eight or nine wins. I think seven wins is a low bar."
Kulesa also liked Denver and the over at 5.5 wins. "I think there will be some regression to the mean. When you do that badly you improve automatically. If you look at why they did poorly last year, minus-17 in turnovers, tied for worst in the league, they won't do that again. I also like a system in which you look at new coaches coming into a situation where the expectations are similar. Denver won four games last year. They should have won five based on the pythag. When you have a situation with a new coach and similar expectation for a team they almost always improve and do it at two to three games. That puts them in six or seven wins."
Chad Millman
ESPN Insider
The debt crisis has been averted, which is swell. But the drama clearly ain't over. The chicken little cries that the sky was falling actually came true anyway. It was really hard to miss when I turned on my Internet machine and logged onto the New York Times: Markets down! Worst day since 2008! Global slowdown feared! Seriously, a global slowdown. Not just regional, not just nationwide. We are talking around the whole world the economy is not just sputtering but downright flailing. I know, it's not a newsflash. But when the news comes at you in waves and with such spectacular, visceral fear, it's hard not to think, This is it, another recession. Even the good news of job growth released this morning only caused a minor, albeit early, bounce in stock market gains.
Why, you may ask, do I sound like I just morphed into the idiot brother of Paul freakin' Krugman? Because I happen to have a lot of friends who work in Wall Street and have MBAs and like to sound pretentious by pronouncing the word finance like it's some noble field and not just a legitimized racket (apologies, of course, to my pals, who deserve all the cash they're making).
And I can tell, while all these guys see the Dow tumbling and are probably hedging their bets right now, a lot of them will pour money right back into the market. That's because they see -- all together now -- VALUE!
Here at the blog, column, whatever you want to call it, we preach value-investing every day of the week when it comes to betting. I beg you people to determine what a game or team or season is worth before you see the lines -- using sound logic and maybe some analytics -- so you can pounce the second a number is posted and you see an opportunity. That was particularly true this past week, as many sports books got around to posting their NFL season win totals following a frenzied week of free agency.
<OFFER>
You can't really have this conversation right now without discussing the Iggles. Every time my phone buzzed with a news alert over the weekend it was because Philly was signing someone. I've got a buddy who lives on my block who is a big-time CEO of a major media company. (I have no idea why he is slumming it in my neighborhood, but I promise you his kids have it better than mine.) Like all Eagles fans, he is perpetually pessimistic and sees no good in anything. And yet, he couldn't stop sending me emails, each one more exited than the next, about how high his expectations were for his team. He also happened to be tracking the news from China, where I picture him in a hotel, in the dark, with his phone to his face just waiting for word on more Eagles pickups. Now, if he were smart and truly loved his team, he would have bought the Eagles to win the Super Bowl at 15-1 after the season ended. Because, by the end of the weekend, the odds were at 8-1. Today they are at 6-1, mostly because a lot of squares came in at 8-1. My Wall Street friends scoff at such late-game piling on.
So, where is the value if you still want to bet season win totals? Well, at the Hilton, bookmaker Jeff Sherman tells me the significant moves have been on the Bears (8.5), Bucs (8), Rams (7.5) and Giants (9.5) over. But, he also cautions, that hasn't been based on any handicapper's opinion. It's mostly because other books out there have slightly different totals and wiseguys are playing both sides.
Over at Lucky's, Jimmy Vaccaro reports that he's already moved the Bengals a full game down because he's had so much action on the under. He's also picked up a lot of action on the Cards and Vikes over, thanks to the additions of Messieurs Kolb and McNabb respectively. (Cards to win the division and Cards over Carolina in Week 1 have also gotten some play. Others getting Week 1 interest at Lucky's: Falcons as small faves over the Bears and Vikes, who opened plus-10 against the Chargers.)
The other day on my podcast I spoke with The SportsBoss, a finance professional himself who applies fancy money algorithms to handicapping models. He had the Steelers and Eagles both winning 12 games this year, a slight value on the 10.5 wins being offered by the Hilton. But the number he really liked was, in a contrarian move, Arizona under seven. This was his logic: "I'm not sold on Kolb at all. They won five games last year and I don't see a three-game improvement. They are still poor against the pass in yards per attempt and they traded their best corner in Rodgers-Cromartie. This year they also play non-division games against the NFC East and AFC North, which is tougher than the AFC West from last year. Under seven for the Cards is probably my top play."
I also checked in with Geoff Kulesa, of wunderdogsports.com. He uses a lot of systems and precedent to make his decisions, combined with some old fashioned pythag wins. He told me he liked "the Titans over seven wins and that has plus juice on it, right now. The reason I like that is a couple of things. I have a theme with this, and it's the same as my other stuff: How should they have done last year versus how did they actually do. If you look at them they had the biggest difference of actual wins versus pythag wins. They should have won 8.5 based on points scored and points allowed. Right now they are projected to win seven. According to pythag wins that is 1.5 games less. Also they had a huge change in schedule. They had the toughest schedule last year if you look at the win percentage of teams they played. This year they have the 23rd-easiest schedule, which is a reason they can outperform. They were also in top half of the league in offense and defense last year, that is consistent with eight or nine wins. I think seven wins is a low bar."
Kulesa also liked Denver and the over at 5.5 wins. "I think there will be some regression to the mean. When you do that badly you improve automatically. If you look at why they did poorly last year, minus-17 in turnovers, tied for worst in the league, they won't do that again. I also like a system in which you look at new coaches coming into a situation where the expectations are similar. Denver won four games last year. They should have won five based on the pythag. When you have a situation with a new coach and similar expectation for a team they almost always improve and do it at two to three games. That puts them in six or seven wins."
