| If someone where to ask me: "Is their one particular | | | | rushing yards against-create a situation that is hard |
| NFL statistic that you would class as indispensable | | | | for even seasoned handicappers to lay off of. How |
| when working against the point spread"? It wouldn't | | | | can you not like a team that appears to be |
| take me long to respond. The answer-Pass Defense | | | | impenetrable both in the air and on the ground? |
| ratings, or PDE for short. | | | | Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay have fallen victim to this |
| This may come as a surprise to those purists who | | | | situation the most over the past 13 seasons with |
| believe that the NFL is built on the rushing game, but | | | | Denver and Baltimore not far behind. This particular |
| yes, how well a team defends against the pass is a | | | | trend is well distributed, however, as 93.8% of teams |
| huge predictor of future results and this article will | | | | in the league have been involved at one time or |
| explore how this stat can directly influence the | | | | another since '94. |
| mind-set and subsequent betting actions of the | | | | There are a handful of Secondary conditions that |
| 'Average-Joe' bettor, under the right circumstances. | | | | round out this situation. Teams looking to get even |
| The most effective way to measure the quality of a | | | | after a late field-goal beat them in a previous |
| teams Pass Defense (as far as handicapping versus | | | | meeting are not included, as well as games where |
| the point spread is concerned) is by using | | | | the opponent is coming in off a Straight-Up Dog win. |
| Yards-per-Play averages, adjusted for the strength | | | | The full details are below. |
| of Pass Offenses a team has faced during the | | | | (Notes: ASMR stands for Average Spread Margin |
| season. | | | | Rating. A positive rating indicates a trend that is |
| As an example: going into the last week of the 2006 | | | | stronger than average versus the line, |
| season, Chicago ranked 2nd in the league with a PDE | | | | negative-weaker than average. TDIS% is the |
| Rating of +0.75. This was calculated by taking | | | | percentage of teams in the league that have been |
| Chicago's Yards-per-Pass play average on defense | | | | involved in this situation at one time or another. |
| (4.77) and subtracting it from how well their pool of | | | | WT% is the percentage of teams that are .500 or |
| opponents passed the ball themselves (5.52 | | | | better and SPR is the average spread for teams in |
| Yards-per-Pass play on offense). 5.52 - 4.77 = +0.75. | | | | this situation. For more details, please consult Page 13 |
| It should be noted that, whether I am calculating an | | | | of my 2007 NFL Game Sheets Guide.) |
| offensive rating, or defensive-a positive number | | | | Situational Trend #46 Summary (Last Updated: Jan |
| always indicates a team that is better than average, | | | | 15th, 2008) |
| while a negative rating indicates a team that is | | | | Primary Conditions (Building Blocks) |
| performing below average in the category we are | | | | 1) Pass Defense Rating (PDE) > +0.50. |
| looking at. | | | | 2) Last game Rushing Yards Against (RYA) < 75. |
| Now that I have explained the math, what are the | | | | 3) Last game Total Plays Against (TPA) < 60. |
| potential uses for this stat? One particular situation | | | | Secondary Conditions (Tighteners) |
| where PDE shows its predictive power is when the | | | | 1) Exclude Clutch FG Loss in Last Meeting (LM4). |
| team in question has a PDE rating > +0.50 and is | | | | 2) Over Under (OU) < 44 in the Current Game. |
| coming off a game in which they shut down their | | | | 3) Opponent not off a SU Dog win. |
| opponents ground attack. | | | | Situation Stats |
| The public loves to bet on teams with tough pass | | | | ASMR: -0.9 |
| defenses and as a result, since 1994, teams with a | | | | Home%: 42.7 |
| PDE rating > +0.50 are a dismal 706-789 (47.2%) | | | | Dog%: 32.7 |
| ATS. | | | | TDIS%: 96.9 |
| This is the first Primary condition for this particular | | | | WT%: 84.2 |
| situation. The 2nd is that our focus team is coming | | | | SPR: -2.63 |
| off a game in which they limited their opponent to | | | | Top Teams: PIT(20); TB(14); DEN(13); BAL(12) |
| less than 75 rushing yards. After this stipulation, the | | | | Situation Records |
| record now becomes167-260 (39.1%) ATS which | | | | Overall (Since '94): 32-127 ATS |
| would have meant a profit of $7630 betting against | | | | 2007 Season: 3-10 ATS |
| this team with $110 wagers at 10/11 odds. | | | | 2006 Season: 4-13 ATS |
| If we include another Primary condition that specifies | | | | 2005 Season: 1-9 ATS |
| our team in question also limited their last opponent | | | | 2004 Season: 5-11 ATS |
| to less than 60 total offensive plays-we end up with | | | | Last 3 Results. Pick in Brackets. |
| a brutally effective situational trend that is 73-157 | | | | 2007 WK18-SD 17 TEN 6 (TEN +10) L |
| (31.7%) ATS since 1994. | | | | 2007 WK18-SEA 35 WAS 14 (WAS +3.5) L |
| Teams with tough pass defenses that are coming | | | | 2007 WK17-TEN 16 IND 10 (IND +5. |
| off a strong defensive effort-especially in regards to | | | | |