| The Gamblers' | ||
| Power Rankings | ||
| 1 | NE | |
| 2 | IND | |
| 3 | DAL | |
| 4 | SD | |
| 5 | PIT | |
| 6 | NO | ▲1 |
| 7 | SEA | ▲1 |
| 8 | CHI | ▼2 |
| 9 | JAC | |
| 10 | NYG | |
| 11 | GB | ▲2 |
| 12 | PHI | |
| 13 | CIN | ▼2 |
| 14 | DEN | |
| 15 | TEN | |
| 16 | ARI | ▲3 |
| 17 | MIN | |
| 18 | DET | ▲2 |
| 19 | WAS | ▼3 |
| 20 | TB | ▲4 |
| 21 | HOU | ▲2 |
| 22 | CAR | ▼4 |
| 23 | STL | ▼1 |
| 24 | BAL | ▼3 |
| 25 | CLE | |
| 26 | SF | |
| 27 | BUF | ▲1 |
| 28 | OAK | ▼1 |
| 29 | NYJ | |
| 30 | KC | |
| 31 | ATL | |
| 32 | MIA | |
Here is the financial breakdown:
| Sharpe | Alpha | Beta | |
| Team | Rank | Rank | Rank |
| ARI | 16 | 14 | 9 |
| ATL | 31 | 27 | 20 |
| BAL | 24 | 21 | 7 |
| BUF | 28 | 25 | 32 |
| CAR | 18 | 30 | 12 |
| CHI | 8 | 7 | 1 |
| CIN | 14 | 9 | 11 |
| CLE | 26 | 15 | 24 |
| DAL | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| DEN | 13 | 23 | 29 |
| DET | 19 | 19 | 27 |
| GB | 11 | 10 | 17 |
| HOU | 22 | 18 | 22 |
| IND | 2 | 4 | 14 |
| JAC | 9 | 6 | 31 |
| KC | 30 | 28 | 4 |
| MIA | 32 | 29 | 2 |
| MIN | 20 | 16 | 19 |
| NE | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| NO | 7 | 5 | 15 |
| NYG | 10 | 11 | 18 |
| NYJ | 29 | 24 | 10 |
| OAK | 27 | 32 | 26 |
| PHI | 12 | 12 | 8 |
| PIT | 4 | 8 | 21 |
| SD | 5 | 2 | 16 |
| SEA | 6 | 13 | 30 |
| SF | 25 | 31 | 13 |
| STL | 23 | 22 | 25 |
| TB | 17 | 26 | 28 |
| TEN | 15 | 17 | 5 |
| WAS | 21 | 20 | 23 |
If you want to know how a specific game breaks down, email me at matt dot moscardi at gmail dot com. Here's a sample of this week's marquee games, the Giants/NE and Dallas/Was (the favorite is the bottom team):
| Sharpe + Alpha | Financial Pick | ||
| NYG | 7.34% | Diff: | 7.89% |
| NE | 15.22% | Adv: | NE |
| Sharpe + Alpha | Financial Pick | ||
| DAL | 12.04% | Diff: | -6.83% |
| WAS | 5.20% | Adv: | DAL |
Now, I take issue with my own power rankings. There is no way San Diego is a better or more consistent team than Jacksonville this year, in my opinion. Nor do I agree that a scrappy Buffalo team and a good-but-not-great Cleveland team are 27th and 25th respectively. But if I go over the numbers, it would make sense based on the way I've figured these statistics.
They way they calculate now, it's showing the ranking as teams that consistently crush the spread down to teams that consistently get crushed. Despite Buffalo being 9-6 ATS this year, when they lose, they lose big. Take the 56-10 drubbing they took against New England earlier this year. Combine that with a few more big losses to the Steelers, NE earlier in the season, and Jacksonville, and no matter how much they eek by the rest of the season, their consistency is pure shite.
Cleveland, on the other hand, is a bit of an odd duck. They are helped by Alpha, ranking in the top half of the league, but it's still not enough to prop them up in terms of Sharpe. My problem is I can't quite explain why yet. They had a fairly bumpy start with that ridiculous loss to Pittsburgh in week 1, and a helluva win in week 4 against the Ravens, but other than those two blips, they have been a middling team in terms of spread performances. They win more than they lose, but they never win big. So why the crummy Sharpe?
Well, my only explanation is in how they perform against how the are supposed to perform as predicted by the statistics at Football Outsiders and the Box. Cleveland has both fallen short of expectations and outplayed themselves. To the point where the Box basically says, "screw you guys" and throws them deep into the "middle basement" reserved for only the most schizophrenic of teams. Cleveland, Detroit, Washington, Houston, Denver, Tennessee... who are you guys really?
I don't know and I don't care, as long as I make the big bucks. Check back again tomorrow, because the best bets are in, and this week I got ridiculous and had fun. Why not? It's the last week of the season!!
No comments:
Post a Comment