NBA Christmas Day Notes

I read the preview about the Lakers game on Christmas, when they played the Cavaliers.

The Cavs talked about how the game was a test for them, to see where they were and how they measured up against the Lakers. They frequently used the word "test" and insisted it was a big game.

Conversely, the Lakers described how they lost to Orlando twice last year in the regular season before beating them in the playoffs. They said it was just another game and not to draw too much meaning from it.

The Cavaliers won handily and lead the final 40 minutes of the game, often by twenty points or more.

This should have been a real red flag for the Lakers, who were non-chalant about the game and were blown out.

NBA Notes

When the Lakers held Utah to six points in the fourth quarter and came from behind to beat them, they travelled two days later to play at Utah. And promptly had their double-digit win streak broken.

Remember: Basketball is a game of effort. There is non-sustainable effort, and sustainable effort. A better team with equal effort will win the game. An inferior team with superior effort will overcome a better opponent.

And I don't just mean hustle during the game. I mean locking in on a game, practicing extra hard, and getting everyone "in the zone" days before hand.

Tebow stymied by his old offensive coordinator...

ESPN game recap:

STARKVILLE, Miss. -- Florida's offense got just what it needed: Help from Mississippi State.

Chris Rainey scored from 8 yards out after the Bulldogs stumbled on a fake punt and Dustin Doe may have slipped a fumble on an interception return for a touchdown past the referees as the second-ranked Gators came away with a tough win, 29-19 over old friend Dan Mullen Saturday night.

The Bulldogs (3-5, 1/3 SEC) stymied the Gators (7-0, 5-0) near the goal line all night, but Rainey's run and Doe's 23-yard return helped Florida extend the nation's longest winning streak to 17 games.

Tim Tebow scored on a 26-yard run and picked up big chunks of yardage outside the Bulldogs 20. But the Gators offense is still struggling and doesn't resemble the juggernaut that won last season's national title.

The Bulldogs kept it close with a pair of interception returns for touchdowns from Johnthan Banks. Tebow had just one in his career before the game against his old offensive coordinator's new team.

They also kept the Gators out of the end zone on their first four trips inside the 20, leading to three short field goals and Banks' first TD return, which went for 100 yards.

With Mississippi State's offense going nowhere against the Gators' nasty defense, Mullen gambled on fourth-and-2 at his own 27. He called for a fake punt, with Robert Elliott taking a pitch on the reverse from the punter. But Elliott tripped trying to make a cut and lost 5 yards.

Six plays later, including a fourth-and-short conversion by Tebow, Rainey found a seem and darted into the end zone. The Gators finally had some cushion, 23-13.

The Gators have scored seven touchdowns in 25 trips to the red zone in SEC play this season.

After No. 1 Alabama needed a blocked field goal on the game's last play to beat Tennessee 12-10, the Gators might have had a chance to grab the top-ranking back in the AP poll.

But Florida worked almost as hard putting away the Bulldogs as Alabama did against the Vols.

And the Gators might have gotten a break on a close call.

Two plays after Rainey's touchdown, Doe grabbed a deflected pass at the 23 and found a path to the end zone.

But the linebacker started celebrating and slowing down before the goal line and Bulldogs receiverBrandon McRae knocked the ball out of Doe's hand. It was ruled a touchdown and it stood up on video review. Had the score been overturned, the Bulldogs could have had the ball at the 20.

Red zone struggles were the topic all week in Gainesville after 23-20 win over Arkansas that cost the Gators the No. 1 ranking. Florida was first in the BCS with Alabama second.

Florida entered the game 76th in red-zone efficiency. Players and coaches attributed it to several things: Poor play by wide receivers and offensive linemen, the loss of Mullen and do-everything playmaker Percy Harvin, Tebow's recent concussion and new offensive coordinator Steve Addazio's play-calling.

All that talk did little to change things Saturday, and the Bulldogs tied it up 13-13 early in the third quarter in a field goal.

Tebow and the Gators had no trouble moving the ball outside the 20. The Heisman winner ripped off an impressive 26-yard scoring run when he jumped for a bad snap, faked a pitch, stiff-armed a defender to get into the open field, then slipped the ball past the pylon on a dive for the end zone.

Florida's defense also came up with a few big plays. The Gators were without middle linebacker Brandon Spikes and a pair of defensive linemen, but still kept Mississippi State's offense out of the end zone and Anthony Dixonin check, snapping his string of five straight 100-yard rushing games.

The critical part is that Tebow went against his old offensive coordinator, and the offense really struggled.

The Final Argument in the Coach Debate

I've been monitoring and debating a phenomenon in which former coaches (and to some extent QBs) do better against their old team than would be expected. And I think I just found the trump card.

I read the recap for the New England/Denver game. For those who don't know, the Broncos were 4-0 heading into the game and New England was a respectable 3-1. The game was at Denver, and Denver was a 3.5 point underdog.

Now on to the interesting stuff: Denver's new head coach was the old offensive coordinator under Bill Belichick. He just left New England this past year. Below is the wikipedia entry Josh McDaniel's time at New England:

McDaniels joined the Patriots in 2001 as a personnel assistant. From 2002 to 2003, he served as a defensive coaching assistant for the team, working with the defensive backs in 2003. In 2004, he became the team's quarterbacks coach. McDaniels was with the New England Patriots for all three of their Super Bowl championships, Super Bowl XXXVI, Super Bowl XXXVIII, and Super Bowl XXXIX. After offensive coordinator Charlie Weis left the team following the 2004 season, the Patriots did not name an offensive coordinator for the 2005 season. According to The New York Times, in 2008, it was McDaniels who called the offensive plays for the 2005 season, although suggestions to that effect were made in 2005.^[2][4] After the season, McDaniels was officially promoted to offensive coordinator, while retaining his responsibilities coaching the team's quarterbacks.

In the 2007 season, with McDaniels at the helm of the offense, the Patriots set NFL records, scoring 75 touchdowns (67 on offense, 50 passing and 17 rushing) and 589 points, leading to rumors that McDaniels might leave the Patriots for a head coaching job.^[5] McDaniels withdrew his name from consideration, however, during the Patriots' January 2008 playoff run. Shortly after the Patriots' loss in Super Bowl XLII, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick gave McDaniels a five-page typed report on what it takes to be an effective head coach and run a winning organization, which McDaniels termed "his bible." Throughout the 2008 season, the two would meet to discuss the report and allow McDaniels to ask non-coaching questions that he brought to later head coaching interviews.^[6]

In the 2008 season, McDaniels led the offense to an 11-5 record with quarterback Matt Cassel, the only known NFL quarterback ever to start an NFL game without ever starting at quarterback in college. McDaniels' role in developing Cassel has been cited as one of his qualifications for head coaching jobs.

Those are pretty important details. The man knows New England and everything about their current roster, and especially about Tom Brady. After all, he was their QB coach for several years.

And as fate would have it, Denver upset New England, winning in overtime. More tellingly, Brady threw for 215 yards, and New England didn't score in the second half. He stymied their offense and heralded QB.

So after reading this I wasn't very surprised and was happy I found another instance in which a former coach did better than average against his old team. Then I found my biggest piece of data:

With the loss, Belichick fell to 8-7 against his former assistants.

Let me write that again, for emphasis:

With the loss, Belichick fell to 8-7 against his former assistants.

Bill Belichick, the greatest coach in the NFL since the millenium started, with more Super Bowl Rings, more victories, the longest winning streaks, the unstoppable force in the NFL, is barely over .500 against his former assistant coaches.

So Belichick, coaching the best team of the last decade, going against 1st time head coaches on teams SO BAD THEY FIRED THEIR PREVIOUS HEAD COACH, is barely winning half his games?

Think about that.

It gives you everything you need to know.

It tells you why the Packers so desperately wanted to avoid Favre coming back to the NFC north. Why Belichick was so furious Eric Mancini went to the NY Jets, a divisional rival.

This statistic about Belichick struggling so much against his assistants settles the debate. If Belichick is only 8-7, the rest of the league's coaches must be terrible.

NFL Thought

When Favre went against the Packers at Minnesota, I was pretty darn sure he would have a good night. He was going against his old team, knew a lot of the players and personnel, and would chirp into the ears of his coaches everything he knew about the offense and defense of the whole team.

He finished with three TDs and the Vikings won easily.

Another example of a QB going against his old team.

Rankings and Systematic Error

The ranking system in football. It is the most bizarre system in modern sports, and the most prone to inaccuracy. However, before I simply lambaste the system and try to figure out a way to exploit it, I need to consider many of the relationships that the ranking system is intertwined with.

Rankings influence the point spread. The point spread is influenced by oddsmakers and crowd perception. Team rankings are also based on past history and performance. Some of that history is so far past that a current team benefits from games played years in the past between none of the players currently involved in the most recent game.

So todays games affect the spread of games in the future between those same "teams" even though all the current players will have graduated.

Also, market size affects the spread and rankings. Bigger markets means more exposure, which means a good performance is duly rewarded.

Remember, a strong finish to the season, which some big names returning, means a high preseason ranking. A weak finish, or big names leaving, means a lower than true ranking. However, the value players in college football are typically offensive linemen, nose tackles, etc. The skill positions are less valuable, especially on offense.

Very similar situation to how points are valued in contracts in the NBA, but don't correlate perfectly with winning.

Week #4 Thoughts

LSU seems like a Jenga tower ready to tip over. And no one has done it yet. They almost lost to Washington State. Now they almost lost to Mississippi State. Who will finally knock them off?

Cal was demolished on the road, despite being called out for their road-woes. Terrible coaching.

Michigan has now won two games that could go either way, so I'm glad to see Rich Rodriguez getting a little bit of luck on his side.

#6 Cal and #9 Miami were beaten thoroughly. Shows the value of preseason rankings. And interesting thing to study is to figure out what goes into pre-season rankings and what determines them? Specifically, how does a coach from Purdue figure out if Cal should be ranked 9th or 19th? Or a coach from UCLA determining the relative merit of a Big 10 team versus an SEC team who played no common opponents the last five years?

Its a huge crap shoot. And unfortunately, pre-season rankings actually carry a lot of weight.

I'd also like to study how and why teams with high early season rankings lose, how they lose, and what factors (likely recurring) lead to some teams being over-hyped. As there is no repercussion for ranking a team high that loses, and I'm sure that coaches tend to over-value teams they know and under-value teams they aren't familiar with or that get little to no national media exposure.

Lastly, I'm sure there is a significant amount of "clumping" or simply coaches asking other coaches what they are ranking other teams, and simply doing the same thing. For example, a coach from Navy won't rank a team #5 in the country that someone else has unranked. Or vice versa. So there is less extremes and less desire to have independent views or to "stick ones neck out" and appear wrong and out of touch. Its better to be wrong with everyone else than be right alone. Because when the reverse happens, being wrong alone and everyone else is easily right, you look like an idiot.

This is a great post and a topic for further exploration. The concept of recurring, systematic errors in preseason rankings that are then found to be fallible later in the season, and that certain factors and consistently over-valued. And the basis for this recurring error is there is no punishment for being wrong AND a desire by each coach to have his rankings resemble those of everyone else's.

There are certain unwritten rules of how far a team drops after a close loss, a major loss, and upset, a loss to a higher ranked team, etc. Those rules are followed. I bet that those are pretty predictable, in fact. Another interesting topic. I wonder if I could make a formula to predict a teams rank the following week based on whether they won or lost, at home or on the road, and the margin of victory. Awesome topic.

And lastly, this of course would represent an investment opportunity if certain trends were discovered in the ranking system that were exploitable.

Thoughts on the weekend

First thought is that we decided to make no picks regarding the Pac-10 challenge.

So our record stands at 2-4-0. Essentially, worse that .500

Other thoughts regard the big Pac-10 news, the upset of USC at Washington. All one needs to know is that they were starting a substitute QB and Washington's coach was USC's offensive coordinator. What was it I told myself about this stuff last season? That coaches tend to do above average against their old teams. They know the team, the staff, the playbook, the signals, the audibles, etc. So it shouldn't be a surprise that this happened.

The second is regarding the Jets-Patriots game this weekend. That PATS were three point favorites. In the game preview, I read that a defensive player said that this game was their "superbowl". They had lost seven straight at home to New England. They had a new coach, and had failed to make the playoffs last year.

A true regular season "superbowl game" can't be had by a team with legitimate superbowl aspirations. If they made the playoffs the previous season, or are looking like they will make them this year, then its tough to have a regular season "Super bowl" game.

Anyways, "Superbowl" games, as labeled by the players, usually mean a big performance by the underdog. And of course, it happened again this time. Nice work by the Jets.

Lastly, earlier posts by me predicted that Mike Singletary would lead the 49ers to new heights (relatively). I wrote that his physical style of play would increase the level of play of the 49ers and bump them up to the 6 to 12 win range. It won't get them higher than that, and even 12 is a stretch. What is most likely is 10 wins as the ceiling. The team will struggle against teams with sophisticated attacks and physical defenses. But they will defeat less physical teams and teams with simple schemes.

Oklahoma's "Bounce Back" Game

Oklahoma lost their Heisman Trophy quarterback Sam Bradford to injury in the first half of the first game. To make matters worse, they were upset by BYU and plummeted in the rankings. Last week they were 13th and going against Idaho St. Apparently Idaho St is a Div 1-AA team, but they were blanked 64-0. It was a really dominant performance.

And I think a big part of that was the team responding to that injury and really locking in over the past week: the combination of the loss to BYU and the injury to their marquee player made each member step up to try to make up the difference. The result was a solid all-around game and a thorough beating.

Marcus Aurelius

The purpose of this blog is similar to the purpose of Meditations was for Marcus Aurelius.  

Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor from 161 to 180 of this era.  He wrote Meditations while on campaign as a source for his own guidance and self-improvement.  The purpose of this blog is my own guidance and improvement in the areas of sports analysis, prediction, investing, etc.   

As sports investing is a craft, anything can come into play.  I value the scientific method and want to create rules and observations based on real data.  I want my conclusions and predictions to be based on reality and be verifiable when possible.  I always want existing data to support my methods and conclusions.  

I read parts of Meditations in high school and have read further portions of it in college.  He preached stoicism, rationality and clear-mindedness.  

Are there certain situations where a team always wins?

I was wondering if there were situations where a team always wins.  Essentially, I mean where a strong team is at home against a very weak team.  A team with a winning percentage of over .800?  Playing a cellar-dwelling team?  Celtics vs. Clippers at home? 

Certainly road games are any less than predictable wins for the visiting team.  Most major upsets occur on the road (in the NBA).  In football I'd assume that is likely as well, but there is a lot of difficulty in determining a team's true skill.  

but perhaps there are instances where a good team hosting a really bad team on the end of a road trip has virtually no chance to win.  This would require some research but is very interesting.  

Conversely, perhaps really bad teams have a better chance of upsetting or covering the spread against a *really* good team than just a good or above average team.  

Why I Can't take picks from someone else- or give my picks away?

I was reading a stock market analysis paper today.  It was about Elliot Wave theory (my current subject of interest) and the writer seemed so asinine.  He was just parroting what he heard in a re-packaged form. 

It got me thinking about the value of original research and the herd mentality, which is a very powerful human instinct.  And I realized that if I searched long enough, I could fine people betting on both sides of any issue.  People predicting opposite outcomes.  And I realized that taking any advice from anyone meant that I was pre-filtering the advice.  

There is simply so much advice out there.  It is impossible to avoid.  And the over-abundance of advice and re-packaged advice and rumors and parrotings means that it is impossible to determine who the researchers are.  Who the people actually making the picks are.  

And even the people making the predictions aren't insulated from other people making picks.  They have reputations, friends, track records, histories, and critics.  It is one gigantic, incestuous loop.  

So much so, with so many reactions and counteractions, that no data I receive is untainted, is unbiased.  When people get more information, it rarely changes their view.  It simply makes them more certain.  They give less weight to contradicting data and more weight to affirmative data.  

We are all bodily creatures, unable to escape our brain, our chemical dependent hardware, swimming in a sea of chemicals and lights and sounds.  There are too many variables to filter out.  

The solution is to simply not take advice from anyone.  All I can do is take as pure of data as I can and never read a sports column or analysis column again.  Unfortunately that will likely never happen.  

So much of the valuable data out there comes in the form of John Hollinger's numbers, and insights that I pick up from reading articles.  Its all so confusing.  

Fibonacci sequence and Elliot Wave Theory

I just read an interesting article about the Fibonacci sequence and Elliot Wave Theory.  These are some very interesting subjects.  They may pertain to sports betting.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:  "Elliott argued that because humans are themselves rhythmical, their activities and decisions could be predicted in rhythms, too. Critics argue that the Elliott wave principle is pseudoscientific and contradicts the efficient market hypothesis."

Now I couldn't agree more with Elliot's premise that human beings are rhythmical.  In fact that is basis of a lot of my observations and research so far.  That indicates to me that there may be some useful information in Elliots Wave Principle techniques.  Also, the criticism that it contradicts the efficient market hypothesis is easily discarded when applied to NBA betting.  I don't think anyone else is researching this so no one else takes it into account.  the efficient market hypothesis implies that everyone knows the information available and can take advantage of it.  

I've been reading about fractals in the Black Swan and have a limited knowledge of them.  Essentially, Elliots Wave theory finds graphs of stock market prices to be fractal in nature and similar patterns can be observed on any timescale.  

Applying what I learned in the Black Swan, scoring in the NBA is from mediocristan.  A player may score 1000 points in a season.  That would correspond to roughly 12 points a game for an 82 game season.  However, he will not play in all 82 games, score 1000 points in one night, and score 0 the rest of the season.  

Same applies to all statistics.  Cumulative totals increase fairly linearly.  

Another quote from Wikipedia:

"Elliott Wave analysts (or "Elliotticians") hold that it is not necessary to look at a price chart to judge where a market is in its wave pattern. Each wave has its own "signature" which often reflects the psychology of the moment. Understanding how and why the waves develop is key to the application of the Wave Principle; that understanding includes recognizing the characteristics described below.^[2]"

Interesting.  This material is really right up my alley.  It talks about how psychology affects behavior and motivation is a subset of psychology.  

Lakers at SacTown

As I write this I this the Lakers are winning 86-72 at Sacramento.  They are only two point favorites on the road.  That seems a little silly to me.  Perhaps oddsmakers are thinking their motivation has wavered and they have lost focus.  

However, two nights ago the Lakers nearly lost to the Clippers after blowing a big lead.  The only thing better for tonight would have been if they'd lost to the Clippers.  Then they would have been very focused and vengeful.  

As it is they will still likely blowout the Kings.  The question is why was the spread so low?  

I think it was because of their near defeat to the Clippers.  But remember the lag factor.  By the time everyone has profiled the Lakers as losing focus, they have switched gears and become focused and wary.  By the time everyone thinks they are focused and playing hard, they will be slipping back into mediocre habits.  And so the pendulum swings, back and forth, back and forth.

The important lesson is that one needs to anticipate.  A close loss to a bad team will spur greater effort the next time a bad team is played.  A dominant win over a bad team will encourage less effort and focus the next time it is played.  There is the back and forth between expectations and effort.  Strong effort yields results and overkill which encourages less effort.  Rarely do players play hard for no reason.  A series of dominant wins will usually provoke less effort from the top team, steadily dropping until a bad loss wakes them up and spurs greater effort.  

Too predictable?

I just read an article on Truehoop, found here, stating the Spurs were all business and getting ready for Oklahoma City.  If you hadn't heard, Manu Ginobili is out for the rest of the season with an ankle stress fracture.  

When a player goes down with injury on a sports team, it focuses everyone else.  They are all aware of how they have to step up and perform.  Media and friends say they have lost the season and can't compete anymore.  But when Manu goes down, there are still talented professional NBA-level players ready to take his place.  Its not that bad!

So it was a surprise to notice that the Spurs were only two point favorites against Oklahoma City tonight.  Oklahoma, the third worst team in the Western Conference!  I mean lets get serious here.  The Spurs lose Ginobili and they are only two point favorites?

Add this to the fact that the Spurs already lost once in OKC this year.  The result is the Spurs won by ten.  There is a pattern here with one supporting factor.   Team loses a key player to a surprise injury and focus and step up their game.  Supporting fact is the Spurs already lost once to Oklahoma and went through that embarassment once.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, ..... don't get fooled again. 

Especially consider that the Spurs were blown out at Cleveland and Tim Duncan had a horrible game.  I don't know how often he has back to back bad games, but he is a proven winner so it is doubtful.  Champions can bounce back from a bad performance.  

Another interesting thing to notice and observe in the coming days is the duration of their overachieving versus the spread.  There is a human limit to over-exertion and human tendencies to relax (as already discussed).  How long will the Spurs over-achieve?  Two games?  Three I'd assume at most before they return to their ways.  

Thoughts on Spurs-Cavs game

The Cavs dominated the whole game today.  From start to finish it was never close and never really out of control.  I read in the game notes that LeBron arrived to the stadium three hours ahead of tip-off to prepare, which is what he does to prepare for big games.  He scored 28 in the first half and 38 overall.  Interestingly this is coming after a close loss to the Wizards (a rivalry game) and a blow-out loss at the Orlando Magic (playoff competitor).  

So the team came out focused, fired-up, etc.  The spread was six points and they won by twenty.  Easily won by twenty.  They are also the best home team in the league at this point.  Games like this are definitely predictable.  

It would be great to get information about if/when LeBron shows up three hours early to games.  What their winning percentage is?

Quick Update

Last night Denver hosted the Clippers.  In my Bleacher Report article on the Clippers, I predicted the Clippers would get blown out by the Nuggets.  They did, losing by sixteen points.  Also, the spread was fifteen points, so Denver covered despite a huge spread.  This prediction was made on the basis of the Clippers being a recent opponent of the Nuggets; the Clippers having no motivation for the game; and the Nuggets trying to maintain a high seed.  

Prediction Total:  10-6

Phoenix vs SacTown

Phoenix played the Kings in the second of a Home and home (with a few other games in between).  The Kings upset Phoenix at Sacramento.  The result was a major blowout of the Kings at home for Phoenix.  I've seen this many times before.  If a good team gets upset on the road, and they play that team at home soon after, it very requently results in a blow-out win for the superior team, now playing at home.  These little sequences occur frequently in the NBA season and are a nifty little opportunity.  

The Intelligence Analysts Toolkit

I need to create a formal "toolkit" for analyzing games, schedules, and circumstances.  I'm reading a book that my friend sent me, that is one of the CIA's reference books for intelligence analysts.  That is essentially what a sports bettor is: an intelligence analyst.   It is titled Psychology of Intelligence Analysis and can be found here.

A theory is a generalization based on the study of many examples of some phenomenon. It specifies that when a given set of conditions arises, certain other conditions will follow either with certainty or with some degree of probability. In other words, conclusions are judged to follow from a set of conditions and a finding that these conditions apply in the specific case being analyzed.

An analyst seeks understanding of current events by comparing them with historical precedents in the same country, or with similar events in other countries

Objectivity is gained by making assumptions explicit so that they may be examined and challenged, not by vain efforts to eliminate them from analysis.

Failure To Consider Diagnosticity of Evidence. In the absence of a complete set of alternative hypotheses, it is not possible to evaluate the "diagnosticity" of evidence. Unfortunately, many analysts are unfamiliar with the concept of diagnosticity of evidence. It refers to the extent to which any item of evidence helps the analyst determine the relative likelihood of alternative hypotheses.  Evidence is diagnostic when it influences an analyst's judgment on the relativelikelihood of the various hypotheses

Scientific method is based on the principle of rejecting hypotheses, while tentatively accepting only those hypotheses that cannot be refuted. Intuitive analysis, by comparison, generally concentrates on confirming a hypothesis and commonly accords more weight to evidence supporting a hypothesis than to evidence that weakens it.  (I think I do this (although I am in the formative stage of hypothesizing)).

Stech notes that in each of these highly successful efforts, the analysts employed procedures that "... facilitated the formulation and testing against each other of alternative hypothetical estimates of enemy intentions. Each of the three accounts stressed this pitting of competing hypotheses against the evidence."

This is basically the summary from Chapter four.  Some very interesting material, for sure.  

Summary of All Predictions so Far

With this blog post I want to summarize and categorize all my predictions that I've made in this blog so far.  Its time to be honest and get a little bit of accountability.  I need an accountabilabuddy, if you will.  

In no particular order:

2/19/09, I wrote that Tyson Chandler was back on the Hornets.  They had previously exploded on Orlando for a 32 point win; but then they discovered the trade was cancelled and I predicted they would be flat the next game or two.  Next two games: 111-115 OT loss at LA and a 14 point loss at Utah (second night of back to back).  

Total:  1-1

Lakers Watch series (six games).  They struggled at home against New Orleans and at Minnesota, not covering the spread.  Then they won big at Pheonix and at OKC.  Then they got demolished by Denver and lost at Pheonix.  They went 2-4 against the spread during that period.  I'm not sure hot much of it though is me fitting a curve to the data or the data to the curve.  I sort of arbitrarily picked the starting time.  But its a good observation to make and realize that teams to "step up" their intensity for a while but they have to pay the piper eventually.

Total: I don't know how to score this, so I'll leave it out.

3/4/09. I boldly predicted Dallas would win at San Antonio after being called out by Mark Cuban. They were 2 point underdogs.  They won outright.

Total:  2-1  

March 7th, 2009, Clippers article published on Bleacher Report.  I predict games I thinkt he Clippers will get blown out in.  Predictions in the article:

Clippers hosting Cleveland:  fail

Clippers at Detroit: Lost by 18.  Success. 

Clippers at Celtics: Lost by 13.  Success.  

Total:  4-2

Superbowl: I predicted (and bet 500) that the Cards would cover the spread.  They did.

Total: 5-2

Conference round: Eagles at Cardinals: I thought Cardinals would lose to the Eagles.  Failure!

Total: 5-3.

Divisional round: Ravens at Titans.  Center Mawae was out for Titans.  I thought that would swing it in the Ravens favor.  Result: Ravens win.  

Total: 6-3

Wildcard round: 1/9/09 post.  I thought Ravens would beat Dolphins (they did) and Colts would blow out Chargers.  Success, and failure.  

Total: 7-4

1/1/09: Predicted USC would beat Penn State handily.  They did.

Total: 8-4.  

12/26/08: Three bowl games predicted.  Results: Cal failed to cover spread, CMU lost, FSU covered.  Results:  1-2

Total: 9-6

Thats all the ones off the top of my head.  If I include the results from Lakers watch I'm 13-8.  Otherwise 9-6. 

Its not bad.  I need to continue to refine my theories and get better at detecting certain games that are likely to be predictable.