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