General Forum

The reason I think it's important...

Posted By: MDMAniac
Date: 26 Sep 01, 2:58 pm

In Response To: To me, . . . (Don Schlesinger)

You don't simply analyze a player or team by looking at their wins and losses. Ultimately, it's all that matters, but there are better indicators of quality when analyzing them. "Average points better than the line" might become a very valuable handicapping stat to look at.

In your example of a handicapper that wins several very close games and then gets blown out when he loses; that is not realistic of a good handicapper. Nor is it realistic of a good football team. The Giants of last year come to mind. They made the Super Bowl, but in retrospect they are not a great team. A player might have a good run of close wins, but a lot of blowout losses certainly shed some doubt. Once the long run comes, these handicappers will be exposed, but in the short term this might be a good analytical tool to see whose record is really reflective of their skill.

In 37 games, I am 41.5 points better than the line. That means that my line has been a little better than a point more accurate than the oddsmakers' in all games. My losing record exists due to bad luck in my opinion. Over the long haul, I think the two stats will approach each other's predictive abilities.

I think they need to be seperated for pro and college and sides and totals, but they can definitely be of value in comparing handicappers. Most importantly, they certainly illustrate the value of shopping lines better than any other statistic does. I am about 1 point per game better than the line. If I got 1 point better on every game, I would be twice as strong. If I got 1 point less I would be dead even (theoretically of course). I'm not saying it's what determines good handicappers. Obviously not, dollars do that. But as a comparison piece it is very interesting in pointing out whose fortunes should change for the better and who's been lucky up until then.

Later,

MDMAniac

Later,

Messages In This Thread

bad beats versus getting beaten badly -- Math Boy -- 25 Sep 01, 11:23 am

Obvious downfall -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Sep 01, 1:44 pm

not so obvious -- Dunbar -- 26 Sep 01, 6:28 am

To me, a waste of time -- Don Schlesinger -- 26 Sep 01, 1:23 pm

an observation -- Dunbar -- 1 Oct 01, 11:55 am

My great claim to fame :-) -- Don Schlesinger -- 1 Oct 01, 5:26 pm

I'm definitely impressed! -- Dunbar -- 2 Oct 01, 7:18 am

Jr. Mets, I believe -- Don Schlesinger -- 2 Oct 01, 11:51 am

who was the handicapper nt (nt) -- steve -- 25 Sep 01, 2:14 pm

Contrariwise... -- James -- 25 Sep 01, 3:03 pm

One problem -- StevieY -- 25 Sep 01, 3:16 pm

selection bias? -- Lefty -- 25 Sep 01, 3:46 pm

some responses -- Math Boy -- 25 Sep 01, 3:59 pm

close games -- Vetsen -- 25 Sep 01, 4:39 pm

How to be sure?? -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Sep 01, 5:04 pm

I miswrote -- Math Boy -- 25 Sep 01, 6:58 pm

Math Boy, I AM the man! -- Goats -- 26 Sep 01, 7:29 am

I somewhat agree (and my results)... -- MDMAniac -- 25 Sep 01, 6:11 pm

I strongly agree with your post. -- fezzik -- 25 Sep 01, 9:05 pm

More results (and commentary) -- Colin Caster -- 25 Sep 01, 10:55 pm

IMO, your post was the best in a great thread -- fezzik -- 26 Sep 01, 7:29 pm

I have a different take on this thought provoking question: -- samo666 -- 26 Sep 01, 6:11 am

I like your example -- Bad Cutter -- 26 Sep 01, 8:13 am

To me, . . . -- Don Schlesinger -- 26 Sep 01, 1:29 pm

Excellent post. You may be correct. -- samo666 -- 26 Sep 01, 2:20 pm

The reason I think it's important... -- MDMAniac -- 26 Sep 01, 2:58 pm

Being better than the line -- StevieY -- 26 Sep 01, 4:23 pm

I'd like to meet you one day, Stevie -- Don Schlesinger -- 26 Sep 01, 5:34 pm

It would be my honor (nt) -- StevieY -- 27 Sep 01, 7:50 pm

Typo -- Don Schlesinger -- 27 Sep 01, 8:37 pm

You gotta learn to blame that on the keyboard (nt) -- Razor -- 28 Sep 01, 5:46 am

Right! :-) -- Don Schlesinger -- 28 Sep 01, 8:45 am

General Forum is maintained by Pi Yee Press