In sports handicapping there have been two misconceptions that have been given great and totally undeserved currency ever since I got into sports betting and handicapping in the later 1970's. These [B][U]misconceptions are[/U][/B]:
1) [B][U]That the line is 'sharper' than ever[/U][/B]. (In my "Memoirs of a Sports Betting and Blackjack Earner"--available on Kindle books at Amazon--I destroy this myth and point out that while the differences are not that great, the fact is that the final scores or margins of NFL games actually fell CLOSER to the NFL closing line in the six year period from 1978-1983 ( a sample of 1,306 regular season and playoff games) as opposed to the five year period of 2004-2008 ( a sample of 1,335 regular season and playoff games).
2) That this (which I proved to be false) 'fact' is caused by the huge amount of information available.
I DO agree that much more information IS available in terms of people working on their NFL bets now than in the late 1970's. Cable and satellite TV and much wider computer availability (especially the Internet) have helped to create this 'information explosion' and led to everyone thinking that (s)he is an NFL betting expert. However, now as well as then, nearly everyone misused and misuses this information or wastes time checking out information which is basically meaningless and often random flux type statistics. (Which among many other things has proven the statement made by betting fraud, Lem--AKA Ice Cream Soda Head--Banker to be yet another incorrect, pathetic and present babbling ("You are only as good as your information") by him.
This week's Bear-Panther game is a classic example of what I just wrote. In the now nearly 1/4th complete 2010 NFL season, the Panthers, for at least the first three games of the season, were considered one of the big busts of it. Last week, the Panthers lost by just two points in a ROAD game against the defending champion, Saints. Suddenly many people feel that the Panthers have 'turned things around' and are 'great value' (especially at the 'outlaw' price of +3 1/2 and even at +3) against a Bear team 'proven to be a phony' in a 14 point loss at the Giants last Sunday night. That the Saints were behind until just under four minutes were left is considered as 'further proof' of that.
Here is my look at what happened last week and how I see this week's game.
1) In a close look at the Panther-Saint game of last week, it is not even certain in my mind that at +12 1/2 that the Panthers were even the 'right point-spread side' on the game. During the game, the Saints lost fumbles on the Panther goal-line as well as at the Panther 23. These lost fumbles probably cost the Saints ten or maybe even 14 points.
2) The stats on the game were very much one-sided in the Saints favor. They had major edges in clock (38 1/2-21 1/2), yardage (383-251), and especially in first downs (27-10). This further shows that if the Saints had not squandered the ten or 14 points they did that the final score would have been much more consistent with the game stats.
3) Many are now 'impressed' with rookie Panther quarterback, Jimmy Clausen. I am not. He passed for just 5.5 yards per pass going 11 of 21. His yards per pass and even more so his completion percentage are well below long-term league averages. Clausen's biggest play was a 55 yard touchdown play. However on this play, Clausen was under virtually no pressure and his receiver was at least 15 yards open. This pass probably could have been completed by any even average college quarterback!!
4) As has been true in every Saint game this year (except in the loss against the Falcons when only a 29 yard field goal miss prevented a Saint overtime win), the Saints have done merely what they have had to do to win. In this game, the Saints had a 9:25 long 86 yard winning field goal drive. When the Panthers mounted a final challenge that reached the Saint 36, the Saint defense got two of the three sacks they got in the game to clinch the win.
That the Saints struggled in a revenge and after-loss spot was not especially significant to me. I feel that way since: A) Many defending Super Bowl champs lack the killer instinct they had the year before (one major reason I have gone against them this year on three potential service plays--with last week being the exception). Further calling this game a 'revenge spot' was sort of idiotic since the loss to the Panthers that the Saints wanted to 'avenge' was their Week 17 loss of 2009. In that game, the Saints had already clinched home field advantage and played virtually no important players in it. Avoiding injuries in that game with the playoffs (and championship) upcoming was FAR MORE IMPORTANT to the Saints than winning that game.
2) Last year, the Saints failed to cover after each of their outright losses. In 2007, when the Saints were also following a season of unexpected success, they went just 2-5 to the number after losses. And even in 2008, then the Saints were a perfect 7-0 to the number after losses, only twice did they win by over 12 points (the needed cover margin last week) in those seven games.
3) In the game Saint quarterback, Drew Brees aggravated a knee sprain which effected his play.
Thus the Saints should have won by more and the fact that they did not--UNDER THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GAME--was not any surprise to me, especially considering that they left a double digit amount of points on the field.
Thus, the Panther still have major problems. When the season began, I overrated them with a C- letter power rating. They had fallen to D- before last week's game. Last week's result did not change that letter power rating (the lesser important power rating--the number one--was pushed up a little (one point) since that power rating is dependent on the margin of the game result.
But since people, including nearly every 'esteemed market-force', misread the meaning of last week's Panther-Saint game despite loads of 'superhighway' information shows why, in the long run, the bookmakers will win out and most of these 'marketforces' (given that reputation totally incorrectly--an event that happens in just about every endevor in today's sad and pathetic world) will lose and have to revert to using their REAL ways of making money (like selling forged driver's licenses for gold, getting by conning their way into sweetheart real estate deals, shilling for casinos while pretending to help players, scalping other bettors--who foolishly believe they are following 'big winners'--on bets etc).
The Bear-Giant game was not as obviously a 'totally phony result' as was the Panther-Saint game. In that Sunday night game the Giant defense held the Bears to 110 total yards, six first downs, 2.1 yards per play, plus registered an incredible ten sacks (nine in the first half. One should be impressed with such stats.
However, they can be--at least to a decent degree--explained by the emotional circumstances that surrounded this game. In my game power ratings, I gave the major number of 3 1/2 points to the Giants due to these emotional edges (which made them a 4 1/2 point power rating favorite with my numbers). I probably did not give the Giants nearly power rating enough points since in this game, their 17-3 win was not nearly as close as the final score would indicate!!
The emotional circumstances surrounding the game were:
1) The Bears were coming off of a monster emotional effort in their (rather lucky) Monday night home win over the team they most love to beat--their ancient rivals, the Green Bay Packers.) The week before that the Bears defeated the elite Cowboys (a game which impressed me far more) IN Dallas.
2) The Giants were coming off a mistake filled HOME loss to the Titans. Though the Giants lost by a rather large 19 point margin (10-29) the fact is that the Giants actually could have won that game if not for many mistakes--some forced by the Titans, but even more mental ones. As is often the case, the total phony frontrunners who dominate the New York City media, got all over the Giants. Having this game also at home just a week after the sad loss to the Titans allowed the Giants to 'make amends' rather quickly. In addition, a loss in this game against the Bears would not only be a third straight loss for the Giants and make them 1-3 but would--since three of their first four games were home games--put the Giants at a -2 on home losses versus road wins. With both games still to be played against the Cowboys, as well as road games against three other teams better than them (Texans, Packers and Vikings), this game had critical importance for the 2010 season. In contrast, the Bears were 3-0 and would still be in first place in the NFC North with a loss (due to the present tiebreak edge they have over the Packers).
Thus the emotional and incentive edges in this game were all on the side of the Giants. In games between teams in the B- to D+ range (Bears are a C+ team and the Giants a C one) these emotional edges often are most significant and often thus 'play themselves out.' In any event, the Giants were super charged for this game and the Bears had a most flat effort. This often happen in nationally televised games, especially if it the HOME TEAM HAS THESE EDGES!!Thus while I was somewhat impressed by the Giants, their 14 point win was not that much of a surprise to me.
RESULT: BEARS COVER ALL NUMBERS EASILY IN A 23-6 WIN!!!
