Is it an advantage? [Archive] - BillsZone.com

EDS

06-19-2013, 09:41 AM

I think it ends up being a wash. The Bills have the good fortune of having a very consistent schedule where they can settle into a routine and not be forced to have change things up - other than the one oddity for the Thursday nighter against Cleveland (but Cleveland is a bad team so this should not be a tough turn around). The Bills then get extra rest to face the Bengals. Also, given the youth on the team, the bye comes at the perfect time in week 12 where the recent college players will be hitting a wall and need the extra rest to adjust to the longer NFL season.

On top of all that, the Bills have the advantage of having longer off-seasons than most teams and have not had to worry about post-season injuries derailing the following seasons preparations.

Jan Reimers

06-19-2013, 10:03 AM

06-19-2013, 11:25 AM

It's definitely an advantage for the other team to have extra prep and rest, but how much, I don't know. It probably depends on the team, but there's really no excuse for the NFL to have it so unbalanced. It shouldn't be that hard to set it up so every team plays one team coming off their bye, and every team plays one Thursday night game. Or at least come close to that. It's ridiculous that the Bills face three teams coming off their bye and the Pats face none.

tatersalad

06-19-2013, 11:36 AM

I never worry about scheduling. You have to beat the teams you play, under whatever circumstances you're given, if you are to be successful. Teams that whine are just looking for excuses, which is never an indication of a winner.

Well said!! back in the Kelly Era we thouhg twe would win every game... now we have resorted to whining about the schedule

Historian

06-19-2013, 11:53 AM

I think it's a load of crap.

There's also the other side of the coin about getting rusty.

All baloney.

better days

06-19-2013, 12:21 PM

Well, the Pats* NEVER have less rest than the team they play, so there MUST be an advantage to playing on an even field or one tilted in your favor.

TigerJ

06-19-2013, 12:25 PM

NOT THE DUDE...

06-19-2013, 12:46 PM

I DONT WANT TO HEAR IT. the team hasn't won **** in over a decade. hasn't had a winning record for christs sake in almost 10 years. wine wine wine, I cant stand the excuses bs...

Night Train

06-19-2013, 01:44 PM

I agree with Historian that it's much to do about nothing, as far as an advantage to the other team... but I also agree with Tiger J's point that Brandon should mention the disparity to the league, since integrity in scheduling could be questioned.

The NFL doesn't wish to appear they may favor or gave an advantage to certain teams, even if scheduling conflicts with stadium events/travel was the legit reason.

better days

06-19-2013, 01:44 PM

I DONT WANT TO HEAR IT. the team hasn't won **** in over a decade. hasn't had a winning record for christs sake in almost 10 years. wine wine wine, I cant stand the excuses bs... There is no BS or excuse being made, just facts given. It is a FACT the Pats* NEVER play with less rest than the team they play. You can go back years & see this is a FACT. A team has a much better chance to win on a level playing field.

Jan Reimers

06-19-2013, 03:02 PM

Basically, we won't get any breaks from the NFL in scheduling, prime time TV games, or anything else until we become relevant again by winning and making the postseason. The Bills' organization has no one to blame but themselves for becoming the red headed stepchild of the league.

BillsFever21

06-19-2013, 05:15 PM

The Bills don't get many(or any) games against other teams when they had more rest because they haven't been good enough to make many Thursday night games outside of the one every team plays along with not being on MNF very much over the years. If we were a better team then we would have more of them type of games. It's only obvious that the teams that play on Monday and Thursday the most are going to have more time inbetween their next game.

BillsFever21

06-19-2013, 05:24 PM

Every year we have a thread about the NFL conspiracy to screw the Bills and then later in the year it's a predictable excuse that is used when we flush the season down the toilet.

I'm sure the NFL is just sitting around every season basing the NFL schedule around how they decide to screw the Bills for the season. If we were a good team and had 4 MNF games then the same people would be talking about the shorter rest periods we have against the teams we play the following Sunday.

NOT THE DUDE...

06-19-2013, 09:31 PM

There is no BS or excuse being made, just facts given. It is a FACT the Pats* NEVER play with less rest than the team they play. You can go back years & see this is a FACT. A team has a much better chance to win on a level playing field.
I agree. im not talking about the nfl favoritism.... im talking about bills players acting like little *****es. its a personal thing man. we are talking about a day or two here. big deal... kick ass and win..

NOT THE DUDE...

06-19-2013, 09:33 PM

let me put it this way. is it unfair? yes. is it relevant to why we have sucked ass for so long? no...

better days

06-19-2013, 11:06 PM

let me put it this way. is it unfair? yes. is it relevant to why we have sucked ass for so long? no... Agreed. And if the Bills are ever to get over the hump & become respectable again, they will overcome all obstacles in their way to do so.

gebobs

06-20-2013, 05:02 AM

There is no BS or excuse being made, just facts given. It is a FACT the Pats* NEVER play with less rest than the team they play. You can go back years & see this is a FACT. A team has a much better chance to win on a level playing field.
And if it wasn't this about the schedule it would be another thing. It's anomaly hunting. Something fans of lousy teams have plenty of time to dwell on. The sad fact of the matter is that the Bills could have a month to prepare for every game and they would still end up 6-10. And people here are looking for reasons why that happens every year.

Here's the reason. They suck. And if Kolb is the starter, they will still suck.

better days

06-20-2013, 08:49 AM

And if it wasn't this about the schedule it would be another thing. It's anomaly hunting. Something fans of lousy teams have plenty of time to dwell on. The sad fact of the matter is that the Bills could have a month to prepare for every game and they would still end up 6-10. And people here are looking for reasons why that happens every year.

Here's the reason. They suck. And if Kolb is the starter, they will still suck.

I already said that I don't blame the Bills sucking on the schedule. And if Kolb does suck as the starter then he needs to be replaced sooner not later by EJ.

I think the Bills can win some games with Kolb starting myself.........................as long as he stays healthy.

feldspar

06-20-2013, 10:58 AM

Chris Brown notes in another article at the official website that three of the five teams Buffalo faces which get extra rest before the play the Bills are their three division opponents, NE, Jets and Miami. If I were Russ Brandon, I would at least question the league about this.

Yep, that's true 3 of the teams are division opponents, but not New England. We face the Dolphins after their bye, and we also face the Jets after their bye AND after their Thursday Night game...so the Jets have extra time to prepare both times we play them.

Also, 4 of the 5 teams that get extra rest that the Bills face play at home...they are almost ALL road games for the Bills. In HALF of our road games, the opponent gets extra time to prepare for the mighty Bills. In fact, the Bills have back-to-back road games against teams coming off their bye week. Week 7 the Bills travel to Miami, and week 8 they travel to New Orleans...both teams will be coming off their bye.

EDS

06-20-2013, 11:58 AM

Yep, that's true 3 of the teams are division opponents, but not New England. We face the Dolphins after their bye, and we also face the Jets after their bye AND after their Thursday Night game...so the Jets have extra time to prepare both times we play them.

Also, 4 of the 5 teams that get extra rest that the Bills face play at home...they are almost ALL road games for the Bills. In HALF of our road games, the opponent gets extra time to prepare for the mighty Bills. In fact, the Bills have back-to-back road games against teams coming off their bye week. Week 7 the Bills travel to Miami, and week 8 they travel to New Orleans...both teams will be coming off their bye.

The Jets are awful. The Bills should beat them even if they have 3 months to prepare.

gebobs

06-20-2013, 12:07 PM

The Jets are awful. The Bills should beat them even if they have 3 months to prepare.
No team needs near that long to beat the Bills. Every Bills fan knows how the overused and overwrought phrase "any given Sunday" applies to our team.

feldspar

06-20-2013, 07:06 PM

No team needs near that long to beat the Bills. Every Bills fan knows how the overused and overwrought phrase "any given Sunday" applies to our team.

So you think the Bills are doomed regardless. I won't argue that opinion.

But this aspect of our schedule does not help the team. This isn't "whining" either. About 31% of the schedule allows the Bills' opponents to regroup before they face us. What exactly is there not to understand about that?

The Jokeman

06-21-2013, 10:44 AM

The Jets are awful. The Bills should beat them even if they have 3 months to prepare.

I thought the same thing last offseason and we saw what happened Week 1 2012.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 10:15 AM

So you think the Bills are doomed regardless. I won't argue that opinion.

But this aspect of our schedule does not help the team. This isn't "whining" either. About 31% of the schedule allows the Bills' opponents to regroup before they face us. What exactly is there not to understand about that?
The claim is that it gives the other team an advantage. A significant advantage. Tell that to the 49ers. They came off their bye week last year and lost at home to the Rams.

Enough anecdote. It's a simple matter of going through the schedule in 2012 to flesh this out. Below are the number of extra days rest an opponent had and their record.

Days Record
+1....14-15
3-4...16-18
6-7...14-18

Certainly not a significant advantage. If anything, it's a disadvantage though the difference is not very significant. Generally, teams that you would expect to win did win.

better days

06-24-2013, 10:41 AM

The claim is that it gives the other team an advantage. A significant advantage. Tell that to the 49ers. They came off their bye week last year and lost at home to the Rams.

Enough anecdote. It's a simple matter of going through the schedule in 2012 to flesh this out. Below are the number of extra days rest an opponent had and their record.

Days Record
+1....14-15
3-4...16-18
6-7...14-18

Certainly not a significant advantage. If anything, it's a disadvantage though the difference is not very significant. Generally, teams that you would expect to win did win.

Even if those numbers are correct which I'm not so sure of, I disagree that time off is a disadvantage. The fact a terrible Coach like Wannestedt can not take advantage of the extra time off does not make the time off a disadvantage.

A GOOD Coach has extra time to prepare & injured players have more time to heal.

And I wonder what the record would be for just the 2nd half of the season when extra rest REALLY can help injured tired players.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 10:46 AM

Even if those numbers are correct which I'm not so sure of
It was a quick and dirty tabulation, but until you're willing to refute it with at least a commensurate amount of work, my results stand.

I disagree that time off is a disadvantage. The fact a terrible Coach like Wannestedt can not take advantage of the extra time off does not make the time off a disadvantage.
Again, the data stand on their own merit. They are across the board for all coaches. Not just the crap Bills coaches.

A GOOD Coach has extra time to prepare & injured players have more time to heal.
Sure, that's one input. As someone else pointed out, teams can get rusty too.

And I wonder what the record would be for just the 2nd half of the season when extra rest REALLY can help injured tired players.You're free to gather your own results.

better days

06-24-2013, 10:57 AM

It was a quick and dirty tabulation, but until you're willing to refute it with at least a commensurate amount of work, my results stand.

Again, the data stand on their own merit. They are across the board for all coaches. Not just the crap Bills coaches.

Sure, that's one input. As someone else pointed out, teams can get rusty too.

You're free to gather your own results.

I don't see a need to go to the work of that, but your numbers don't stand up at all with no info about which teams had those records.

It is just common sense, injured & tired players will benefit from extra time off as will GOOD Coaches that have extra time to game plan.
And the Bills Coaches are not the only crap coaches in the NFL.

And I could buy if a team has a couple weeks off it could get rusty, but I doubt that happens with a week or less of rest.

justasportsfan

06-24-2013, 11:00 AM

when a team gets more rest than it's opponent on a given week in the NFL? Buffalo plays 5 teams in the upcoming season that will have had more rest time than the Bills for their game, more than any other team. Buffalo plays no team when they've had more rest than their opponent. The team they play after their bye week also has a bye week. http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2013/06/19/nfl-scheduling-does-bills-falcons-no-favors/

the bills will find out if it's an advantage when they rest during their first round bye in the playoffs

Typ0

06-24-2013, 11:03 AM

rusty might be a bad word. How about all the change in when you play the games interrupts the flow of your preparation. I totally can see that being a challenge to overcome.

- - - Updated - - -

Basically, we won't get any breaks from the NFL in scheduling, prime time TV games, or anything else until we become relevant again by winning and making the postseason. The Bills' organization has no one to blame but themselves for becoming the red headed stepchild of the league.

How many teams make scheduling demands of the NFL? We know the Bills do. I think that's getting a break!

better days

06-24-2013, 11:11 AM

rusty might be a bad word. How about all the change in when you play the games interrupts the flow of your preparation. I totally can see that being a challenge to overcome.

- - - Updated - - -

How many teams make scheduling demands of the NFL? We know the Bills do. I think that's getting a break!

If there is LESS time to prepare, I agree that is a challenge. But EXTRA time? WHY would that be a challenge? NOT buying what you are selling.

And if you don't think the Pats* get preferential treatment when it comes to the schedule, you are deluded.

Typ0

06-24-2013, 12:10 PM

because rhythm has a lot do to with it. Remember these people are all trying to manage personal lives as well. I am just suggesting the more consistent the schedule the more rhythm and cadence they will have in their preparation emotionally, physically and intellectually. Structure is very clearly a benefit in our lives. Working a swing shift presents different challenges than a regular 9 - 5 schedule. Sounds great they have more time to prepare! But that also means they have less time to prepare for another game! And the team is trying to negotiate the schedule as a whole every nuance in which is going to effect their outcome.

If there is LESS time to prepare, I agree that is a challenge. But EXTRA time? WHY would that be a challenge? NOT buying what you are selling.

And if you don't think the Pats* get preferential treatment when it comes to the schedule, you are deluded.

better days

06-24-2013, 12:52 PM

because rhythm has a lot do to with it. Remember these people are all trying to manage personal lives as well. I am just suggesting the more consistent the schedule the more rhythm and cadence they will have in their preparation emotionally, physically and intellectually. Structure is very clearly a benefit in our lives. Working a swing shift presents different challenges than a regular 9 - 5 schedule. Sounds great they have more time to prepare! But that also means they have less time to prepare for another game! And the team is trying to negotiate the schedule as a whole every nuance in which is going to effect their outcome.

Yes they have NO ADVANTAGE, in fact are at a disadvantage when they have LESS time to prepare as most teams do EXCEPT the Pats* but I am not buying the BS about having MORE time off is a disadvantage.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 01:15 PM

I don't see a need to go to the work of that, but your numbers don't stand up at all with no info about which teams had those records.
If there's an advantage, there should be a bias i.e. it should confer some average advantage over the entire league.

It is just common sense, injured & tired players will benefit from extra time off as will GOOD Coaches that have extra time to game plan.
I'm a data-driven guy. Common sense is often overrated. At best, it can be used to generate a hypothesis such as this, but often data fail to support it.

To that end, I took that quick and dirty and did a more precise and careful analysis. Fortunately, I have all the NFL results for last year in a spreadsheet that I used for my pool so the analysis didn't take too long. For each game, I calculated the time off since the previous game, down to the minute, calculated the difference, and did a scatter plot of that difference vs. the final score difference. Thus...

16518

The horizontal axis is the difference in days off between the two teams. Obviously, most games are going to be between teams that have little difference in time off. The vertical axis is the difference between the final points for the two teams. A result above the horizontal axis indicates a positive correlation i.e. the team with more time off won. A result below indicates the opposite.

If there is an effect due to difference in time off, a bias should be noticeable. If time off leads to more wins, there should be more results above than below. More below than above would indicate a negative correlation.

The results show that less than 5 days rest confers no noticeable advantage. However, with 5+ days rest, teams tend to win by more and lose by less. But this is contradicted by the actual results since teams with 5+ barely break 0.500 (13-12). At this point, it has to be said that the advantage of that much rest is inconclusive.

The results, if grouped according to the plot agglomerations:

Days...Record
0-0.5...80-76
0.5-2...11-14
2-4.....14-19
5+......13-12

If you can spot a bias there, you're a better man than me.

- - - Updated - - -

rusty might be a bad word. How about all the change in when you play the games interrupts the flow of your preparation. I totally can see that being a challenge to overcome.
Concur.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 01:21 PM

Yes they have NO ADVANTAGE, in fact are at a disadvantage when they have LESS time to prepare as most teams do EXCEPT the Pats* but I am not buying the BS about having MORE time off is a disadvantage.
I do not think the data support any positive claims to the contrary i.e. more time off is disadvantageous. All I can say is that the data do not support the hypothesis that additional time off confers an advantage.

Thus, this thread is, to quote Macbeth: a tale, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

better days

06-24-2013, 03:37 PM

I do not think the data support any positive claims to the contrary i.e. more time off is disadvantageous. All I can say is that the data do not support the hypothesis that additional time off confers an advantage.

Thus, this thread is, to quote Macbeth: a tale, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You & TypO sound like the guy on the commercial with the kids.

"Would you rather work the swing shift or have a day off?"

"Oh, you would rather work the swing shift so your mommy could not make you go to bed. Makes perfect sense."

gebobs

06-24-2013, 04:12 PM

You & TypO sound like the guy on the commercial with the kids.

"Would you rather work the swing shift or have a day off?"

"Oh, you would rather work the swing shift so your mommy could not make you go to bed. Makes perfect sense."
What?

The claim is that more days off confers an advantage. Such a claim is testable. I tested it and it failed. Do you want to discuss the results or are you so set in your "common sense" that evidence can't sway you. If the latter, let me know. I find this very interesting, but your casual dismissal is annoying.

Another claim, one that you made, is that this advantage should be more pronounced as the season wears on teams. Again, I was skeptical, so I decided to test that hypothesis. Following you will see four time series scatter plots for the score spread, as with the one earlier, vs. the date played. Results above the horizontal confirm the hypothesis and those below disconfirm. A trend line was added to show if there is time dependence.

There are three things you should look at with each:
* A real bias is indicated if the results above or below the line vary significantly.
* Real bias is seen if the trend line strays significantly from the horizontal axis.
* Time dependence is shown by the slope of the trend line.
* Th R^2 value shows how strong the trend is. A perfect trend has an R^2 of 1.0. No trend has R^2 of zero.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 04:15 PM

16520

This is the control. Both teams have equal rest. As expected, there is no bias and the trend is negative but not significant (R^2=0.005).

better days

06-24-2013, 04:17 PM

What?

The claim is that more days off confers an advantage. Such a claim is testable. I tested it and it failed. Do you want to discuss the results or are you so set in your "common sense" that evidence can't sway you. If the latter, let me know. I find this very interesting, but your casual dismissal is annoying.

Another claim, one that you made, is that this advantage should be more pronounced as the season wears on teams. Again, I was skeptical, so I decided to test that hypothesis. Following you will see four time series scatter plots for the score spread, as with the one earlier, vs. the date played. Results above the horizontal confirm the hypothesis and those below disconfirm. A trend line was added to show if there is time dependence.

There are three things you should look at with each:
* A real bias is indicated if the results above or below the line vary significantly.
* Real bias is seen if the trend line strays significantly from the horizontal axis.
* Time dependence is shown by the slope of the trend line.
* Th R^2 value shows how strong the trend is. A perfect trend has an R^2 of 1.0. No trend has R^2 of zero.

Unless you show ALL the teams playing in ALL the games you list, your numbers have NO validity. The extra days off is only one variable of MANY.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 04:17 PM

16521

A few days extra rest. There is no bias and the trend is positive. This is the strongest trend, R^2 = 0.0221 though this just "corrects" for the larger negative bias earlier in the season for this much extra time off.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 04:20 PM

16522

Middling rest "advantage. There is a weak negative bias as seen by the trend line staying below the horizontal axis. The trend though has no time basis.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 04:22 PM

16523
Greatest "rest" advantage. A slight positive bias (trendline over the horizontal axis) though again the counts are close (13-12). There is little time basis for the trend.

better days

06-24-2013, 04:31 PM

16523
Greatest "rest" advantage. A slight positive bias (trendline over the horizontal axis) though again the counts are close (13-12). There is little time basis for the trend.

As I said extra days of rest is only one of MANY variables that come into play. If a bad team plays a GOOD team it is doubtful thebad team wins even with extra days off. If a GOOD team has less rest than a BAD team, but just suffered an injury to an important starter that would have an effect as well.

You would need to list all the teams involved & the point spread before the game was played for this to have ANY validity at all.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 04:32 PM

Unless you show ALL the teams playing in ALL the games you list, your numbers have NO validity.
Not necessary. If there is a bias, it should be apparent based on an unbiased treatment of the data i.e. using all the data on hand, which I have. If there is a bias, bad teams with more time off should, at a minimum, lose by fewer points and good teams should win by more.

The extra days off is only one variable of MANY.
Well duh. This is only the first step when analyzing cause and effect: determining which inputs (in this case, the difference in days rest) have the greatest effect on the output (just wins, baby).

Of course, my objective here is not to determine exactly what the most significant causes are. My only objective here was to determine if the hypotheses that days off are a significant effect or if that effect has time dependence are valid.

The data say no.

better days

06-24-2013, 04:37 PM

Not necessary. If there is a bias, it should be apparent based on an unbiased treatment of the data i.e. using all the data on hand, which I have. If there is a bias, bad teams with more time off should, at a minimum, lose by fewer points and good teams should win by more.

Well duh. This is only the first step when analyzing cause and effect: determining which inputs (in this case, the difference in days rest) have the greatest effect on the output (just wins, baby).

Of course, my objective here is not to determine exactly what the most significant causes are. My only objective here was to determine if the hypotheses that days off are a significant effect or if that effect has time dependence are valid.

The data say no.

Like I said this is the phony false logic of the guy in the commercial with the kids.

Anything can seem to "make perfect sense" unless examined properly.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 04:38 PM

As I said extra days of rest is only one of MANY variables that come into play. If a bad team plays a GOOD team it is doubtful thebad team wins even with extra days off.The charts use final score. Bad teams should, if there is bias, at least lose less badly with extra time off. The charts will show that if it exists.

If a GOOD team has less rest than a BAD team, but just suffered an injury to an important starter that would have an effect as well.
Of course. And sometimes the starter might be replaced with someone better (e.g. Kaepernick). That is called a noise variable. We deal with them all the time in engineering. We don't take the day off just because we cannot account for every input or even control them.

But I don't have to drill down that deeply. If I analyze over the entire breadth of the season, noise variables can be assumed to average out.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 04:42 PM

Like I said this is the phony false logic of the guy in the commercial with the kids.

There is nothing "phony" or "false" about my logic.

Anything can seem to "make perfect sense" unless examined properly.

How do you propose to test this? Go ahead and set it up.

better days

06-24-2013, 04:48 PM

The charts use final score. Bad teams should, if there is bias, at least lose less badly with extra time off. The charts will show that if it exists.

Of course. And sometimes the starter might be replaced with someone better (e.g. Kaepernick). That is called a noise variable. We deal with them all the time in engineering. We don't take the day off just because we cannot account for every input or even control them.

But I don't have to drill down that deeply. If I analyze over the entire breadth of the season, noise variables can be assumed to average out.

There is a LOT of NOISE in your BS posts.

The FACT is you would need to name ALL the teams that played against EACH other so ALL of the VARIABLES could be assessed for each game.

better days

06-24-2013, 04:50 PM

And IMO point spread would be a good way to determine the GOOD teams from the BAD teams before a game was played.

better days

06-24-2013, 05:03 PM

There is nothing "phony" or "false" about my logic.

How do you propose to test this? Go ahead and set it up.

Like I said list the teams that played against each other & the point spread for that game before it was played & the final score. That would show how even the teams were to each other.

I think if two teams are evenly matched, the team with the extra rest wins 9 out of 10 times. But extra rest will not be a huge difference for a bad team against a good team.

And again other variables are involved, such as injuries. The point spread before a game tell MUCH.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 05:07 PM

There is a LOT of NOISE in your BS posts.

I'm trying to be helpful, but posts like the above just show how defensive you are getting. It's not likely that I will ever get through.

The FACT is you would need to name ALL the teams that played against EACH other so ALL of the VARIABLES could be assessed for each game.
What fact? You have no facts. You have a hunch. Nothing more. Like I said, go ahead and set up the test. If you want, I can provide the data to you and you can analyze it to your heart's content.

It seems to me that your approach is akin to "not seeing the forest for the trees". We can look at every game with all the minutiae of records, game site, injuries, etc., etc. and we won't get any closer to answering the question.

The long and the short of it is, regardless of my method, no advantage shown for extra time off. No one here but me has done any analysis. All you have is your argument from personal incredulity. As such, until you can provide better analysis, the conclusion is clear: the hypothesis fails.

better days

06-24-2013, 05:10 PM

Like I said list the teams that played against each other & the point spread for that game before it was played & the final score. That would show how even the teams were to each other.

I think if two teams are evenly matched, the team with the extra rest wins 9 out of 10 times. But extra rest will not be a huge difference for a bad team against a good team.

And again other variables are involved, such as injuries. The point spread before a game tell MUCH.

And we can do this for the coming season to test our theories. It would be much easier than to try to go back & get the data.

We can go week to week & look at the teams with extra time off & who they play, compare them by the point spread & see who wins.

I maintain that if two teams are evenly matched, the team with the extra rest wins 9 times out of 10.

Of course TRAVEL plays a part in the rest of teams, that is why HOME teams are favored everything else being equal.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 05:11 PM

Like I said list the teams that played against each other & the point spread for that game before it was played & the final score. That would show how even the teams were to each other.
That would definitely be a different insight and I will be glad to do it if you can find all the spreads. Lacking it though does not invalidate my results as that should average out over a large number of samples.

I think if two teams are evenly matched, the team with the extra rest wins 9 out of 10 times.
Bold claim.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 05:12 PM

I maintain that if two teams are evenly matched, the team with the extra rest wins 9 times out of 10.
Great. Want to put some money on it?

better days

06-24-2013, 05:24 PM

Great. Want to put some money on it?

I don't have money to gamble. I had throat cancer & am on SS disability. I will make a bet other than money, zonebux, whatever.

jimmifli

06-24-2013, 05:40 PM

Great. Want to put some money on it?
That's one thing you can count on betters to do.

http://www.thesportsgeek.com/sports-betting/strategy/nfl-bye-week/

How Teams coming off the Bye Have Fared in Recent Years

Over the four most recent seasons (2007-2010), in games where only one team is coming off the bye, the team coming off the bye has a record of 65-54-1 straight up, and 61-44-5 against the spread.

Now, if you’re thinking about betting teams coming off the bye because the past four years they’ve covered 58.1% of the time, read my article on the current betting market. A system such as that might have worked in 2006; but, more likely than not, this trend won’t continue. This is because today NFL betting lines are far more efficient, and the market will likely correct itself.

The standard ATS data is nice, but it really doesn’t tell us much unless we break it down further. After doing so, a more interesting trend appears. Using the same 110 game sample, teams coming off the bye week that are favored have a record of 48-12 straight up and 36-20-4 ATS, while underdogs coming off the bye have a record of 17-32-1 straight up and 25-24-1 ATS.

Next, let’s look at this data broken down into four subsets:

Home Favorites: 31-11 Straight / 21-19-2 ATS
Road Favorites: 17-1 Straight / 15-1-2 ATS
Home Underdogs: 9-8-1 Straight / 11-6-1 ATS
Road Underdogs: 8-24 Straight / 14-18 ATS

The sample size on road favorites is rather small, but 15-1-2 against the spread is massively impressive, nonetheless. To share a remote stat out of an article I wrote a couple of years back, from 1990 to 2008 (over a 150 game sample size), road favored teams coming off a bye week covered the spread nearly 70% of the time.

To go back to and get more accurate four year numbers for all favorites coming off the bye, there are 9 games missing from the 110 sample size I used. This is because 9 times since 2007 there were games where both teams were coming off the bye. (32×4=128), I got the 110 sample size because 18 of the byes were not relevant to opening discussion. To take a look at these games where both teams were coming off a bye, the favorite’s record is 8-1 straight up and 7-2 ATS. Using all data from the past four seasons, the records for favorites coming of the bye are as follows:

All Favorites: 56-13 Straight / 43-22-4 ATS
Home Favorites: 37-11 Straight / 26-20-2 ATS
Road Favorites: 19-2 Straight / 17-2-2 ATS

The data here strongly supports that good teams benefit from the bye more than the market is giving them credit for. I say that because only good teams are favored on the road in the NFL. Using just road favorites is a bit quirky, however, and some might consider it “data mining”, even though this trend is well founded when dating back much further than 2007. If we’re going to really look at this in depth, though, we need to look at subsets of all favorites disregarding home and away, as that’s built into the spread.

Using all data from the past four seasons:

Favorites of -14 or more coming off a bye week
5-1-1 (ATS)

Favorites -7.5 to -13.5 coming off a bye week
8-4 (ATS)

Favorites -7 or less coming off a bye week
30-17-3 (ATS)

The important thing to note here is that there is no guarantee these trends will continue. In fact, as a firm believer in efficient market theory applied to sports betting, I believe it’s unlikely we will see the same results in 2011. It is still something to be conscious of going forward.

Road favorites seems like a strong correlation, and while spreads will adjust so the betting strategy isn't viable, the games aren't likely to change. Thoughts?

better days

06-24-2013, 05:48 PM

That's one thing you can count on betters to do.

http://www.thesportsgeek.com/sports-betting/strategy/nfl-bye-week/

Road favorites seems like a strong correlation, and while spreads will adjust so the betting strategy isn't viable, the games aren't likely to change. Thoughts?

I think this validates what I said, that extra time off benefits GOOD teams, bad teams, not so much.

Extra time off is only one variable in games played.

jimmifli

06-24-2013, 06:15 PM

I think this validates what I said
I guess. I'm more interested in what Gebob's thinks since he's shown a willingness to use reason where as you've just thrown **** at the wall hopping something will stick.

better days

06-24-2013, 06:22 PM

I guess. I'm more interested in what Gebob's thinks since he's shown a willingness to use reason where as you've just thrown **** at the wall hopping something will stick.

That may be what you think, but I know the game of football & I use logic.

IMO I am the person that used reason. Stats can be used to prove false logic all the time which is what Gebob did.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 06:24 PM

OK, I grabbed all of the spreads from last year. I adjusted the final score accordingly and did the same scatter plot: final score (now adjusted) vs. difference in days off...

16524

The overall trend, though not very strong, is negative. There is a bump in the 2-4 days off range followed by a big trough for 5+.

Days...Record...Time Series (R^2)
0-0.5.......75-81.......Negative (0.0058)
0.5-2.......10-15.......Negative (0.0195)
2-4..........21-13.......Negative (0.0136)
5+...........9-16........Positive (0.0187)

Overall, teams with 2+ days off extra rest were 30-29, almost exactly 0.500, and nowhere near 9 out of 10.

Only the 5+ days off showed any positive time dependence though this was clearly a case of starting off real bad and getting "less worse". Through October, teams with 5+ days more rest were 4-10. After that, they were 5-6.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, I grabbed all of the spreads from last year. I adjusted the final score accordingly and did the same scatter plot: final score (now adjusted) vs. difference in days off...

16524

The overall trend, though not very strong, is negative. There is a bump in the 2-4 days off range followed by a big trough for 5+.

Days...Record...Time Series (R^2)
0-0.5.......75-81.......Negative (0.0058)
0.5-2.......10-15.......Negative (0.0195)
2-4..........21-13.......Negative (0.0136)
5+...........9-16........Positive (0.0187)

Overall, teams with 2+ days off extra rest were 30-29, almost exactly 0.500, and nowhere near 9 out of 10.

Only the 5+ days off showed any positive time dependence though this was clearly a case of starting off real bad and getting "less worse". Through October, teams with 5+ days more rest were 4-10. After that, they were 5-6.

better days

06-24-2013, 06:29 PM

better days

06-24-2013, 06:36 PM

And there is no possible way your graph correlates with the numbers in the post jimmifli posted.

Either those numbers in that article are wrong or your graph is. I would bet the numbers in the article are correct.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 06:47 PM

I think this validates what I said, that extra time off benefits GOOD teams, bad teams, not so much.
On the road. At home, not so much. Home dogs outperform home favorites according to this.

If you combine (game site should be accounted for in the spread), favorites are 36-20-4 and dogs are 25-24-1. Those results overall seem to support your position, but not nearly the "9 of 10" you thought.

And the results are a bit confusing on that score. It seems to me that overall, the number of favorites should equal the number of dogs, right. He has a sample of 110 games and 9 other games featured both teams coming off a bye. How are there 60 favorites and just 50 dogs. There should be 55 of each. Similarly, if you total the home and road teams, you get 50 and 60 respectively.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 06:52 PM

As I have been saying. Stats can be misleading. Time off is only one variable involved. Your graph proves nothing without including point spreads of the teams involved.
The point spreads are included in my plot. The very first line of my post: "I grabbed all of the spreads from last year. I adjusted the final score accordingly..."

And there is no possible way your graph correlates with the numbers in the post jimmifli posted.

Either those numbers in that article are wrong or your graph is.
Um, the article is using data from 2007 to 2010. I used 2012. I was very clear about this in my post. Do you even read my posts?

I would bet the numbers in the article are correct.
Based on what exactly? That it's on a website? I showed two errors in those results that throw the whole pile into question. I have more statistical cred in my left nut than that website does.

Even if we accept the results with a grain of salt, the results don't support your other "bet".

better days

06-24-2013, 06:54 PM

On the road. At home, not so much. Home dogs outperform home favorites according to this.

If you combine (game site should be accounted for in the spread), favorites are 36-20-4 and dogs are 25-24-1. Those results overall seem to support your position, but not nearly the "9 of 10" you thought.

And the results are a bit confusing on that score. It seems to me that overall, the number of favorites should equal the number of dogs, right. He has a sample of 110 games and 9 other games featured both teams coming off a bye. How are there 60 favorites and just 50 dogs. There should be 55 of each. Similarly, if you total the home and road teams, you get 50 and 60 respectively.

Straight up, Home favorites were 37-11 Road favorites were 19-2.

I may have been off a little saying 9 of 10 wins, but You were WAY off saying having time off was a disadvantage.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 07:03 PM

Straight up, Home favorites were 37-11 Road favorites were 19-2.
What was all that crap about using spreads to account for which was the better team, injuries, etc? Are you just going to pick the data that suits you? And questionable data at that?

I may have been off a little saying 9 of 10 wins, but You were WAY off saying having time off was a disadvantage.
I never said anything of the kind. My only point throughout the entire thread has been to disprove that additional days off confer any significant advantage. I have never once tried to make any positive claim one way or the other.

One time, remarking on objective data, I wrote:

(It's) certainly not a significant advantage. If anything, it's a disadvantage though the difference is not very significant.

It was a remark on the data. It was not intended as my opinion. If that was your impression, there's your clarification.

better days

06-24-2013, 07:03 PM

The point spreads are included in my plot. The very first line of my post: "I grabbed all of the spreads from last year. I adjusted the final score accordingly..."

Um, the article is using data from 2007 to 2010. I used 2012. I was very clear about this in my post. Do you even read my posts?

Based on what exactly? That it's on a website? I showed two errors in those results that throw the whole pile into question. I have more statistical cred in my left nut than that website does.

Even if we accept the results with a grain of salt, the results don't support your other "bet".

OK where does your stat cred come from? Self given? Show me where an impartial body gives you cred over that website & I will bow to your superiority.

better days

06-24-2013, 07:13 PM

What was all that crap about using spreads to account for which was the better team, injuries, etc? Are you just going to pick the data that suits you? And questionable data at that?

I never said anything of the kind. My only point throughout the entire thread has been to disprove that additional days off confer any significant advantage. I have never once tried to make any positive claim one way or the other.

One time, remarking on objective data, I wrote:

It was a remark on the data. It was not intended as my opinion. If that was your impression, there's your clarification.

My idea of using spreads was to show the teams that were even in talent. All along, I have said BETTER teams will WIN over bad teams & I said I did not blame the Bills schedule & lack of time off as an excuse for their crappy record.

And yes, I based much of what I have posted based on you saying having time off was a disadvantage, although you said a small one.

I have maintained from the start as I continue to maintain & have been proven to be correct that GOOD teams benefit from having extra time off.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 07:53 PM

OK where does your stat cred come from? Self given? Show me where an impartial body gives you cred over that website & I will bow to your superiority.
1986: BS, Eng., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
1992: MBA, Operation Management, Case Western Reserve University
1993: certified Six Sigma Green Belt, SGS-ICS
2003: certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Breakthrough Management Group

gebobs

06-24-2013, 08:30 PM

I have maintained from the start as I continue to maintain & have been proven to be correct that GOOD teams benefit from having extra time off.
You only "have been proven to be correct" when the data suits you. The questionable data from that website only support that road favorites do well after a week off, not home favorites.

Furthermore, those results only consider bye weeks. I consider the extra days off due to Thursday night games and the day lost for Monday nights. And their results only consider the binary, W vs. L, while I also consider head-to-head PF/PA as a measure of relative performance.

And my results, which factor spread i.e. favorites/dogs, don't support your conclusion that additional time off significantly favors better teams. But let me illustrate it more clearly. Here is the now familiar scatter plot done for teams that are 3+ point favorites and with 2+ extra days rest.

16525

So there is a bit of a bump in the 2-day range that is contradicted by the 5+ day "advantage" as was seen previously. Overall, the favorites were 11-8 though their performance against the spread degraded with additional days off. So of the two inputs here, relative team quality as expressed by the spread and additional days off, which do you think should account mainly for that 11-8 record?

To put it another way, do you think it's reasonable to expect that a 3+ point favorite would win 11 games out of 19? I think, decidedly yes. If so, then that leaves little for "time off" to explain for the effect.

Let's go ahead and set up our experiment for the year. Each week starting with Week #2, we'll track for each game:
* the difference in time since last played for the teams
* the spread
* the adjusted score, dog + spread - favorite

GvilleBills

06-24-2013, 08:31 PM

gebobs

06-24-2013, 08:34 PM

I guess. I'm more interested in what Gebob's thinks since he's shown a willingness to use reason where as you've just thrown **** at the wall hopping something will stick.
Not quite. He throws the crap and I'm left to show if it sticks or not.

jimmifli

06-24-2013, 08:55 PM

Not quite. He throws the crap and I'm left to show if it sticks or not.
I like the idea of using the spread to normalize against expectations, but the site I posted seems to think the spread bakes those expectations in (efficient market theory) so I'm not sure if it's even a valid strategy. Without that, the stats just prove that teams with winning records win more often than teams with losing records and we don't really have a predicted outcome to compare to. Or am I missing something?

Historically since 1990 (when the bye was added) it's been about 55% for bye teams winning. That stat seems to indicate it has some effect.

jimmifli

06-24-2013, 08:59 PM

1986: BS, Eng., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
1992: MBA, Operation Management, Case Western Reserve University
1993: certified Six Sigma Green Belt, SGS-ICS
2003: certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Breakthrough Management Group

**** you're an oldman.

My dad is a statistician and industrial engineer, I grew up with this stuff as dinner table talk. I did a book report on The Goal in grade five, I still have it somewhere.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 09:12 PM

**** you're an oldman.

My dad is a statistician and industrial engineer, I grew up with this stuff as dinner table talk. I did a book report on The Goal in grade five, I still have it somewhere.
Cool? What's your gig?

I am interviewing this week for the QM position for a company here in the Atlanta area. On the plus side, they have a plant in Buffalo so possibly a few trips home on the company dole. Also, plants in Switzerland and Italy if anyone's into that. ;-)

My current job has advantages too. Most importantly, 3-1/2 day work weeks.

gebobs

06-24-2013, 09:20 PM

Without that, the stats just prove that teams with winning records win more often than teams with losing records and we don't really have a predicted outcome to compare to. Or am I missing something?

Somewhat my point a few posts earlier....

To put it another way, do you think it's reasonable to expect that a 3+ point favorite would win 11 games out of 19? I think, decidedly yes. If so, then that leaves little for "time off" to explain for the effect.

Not all inputs are the same. Put a pot on to boil and changes in the ambient atmospheric pressure will affect how long it takes to boil. So will the BTUs to the point that pressure can be dismissed as an input.

better days

06-24-2013, 10:20 PM

Not quite. He throws the crap and I'm left to show if it sticks or not.

Am I throwing the crap or are you? Your charts are poorly labeled, & VERY doubtful of their accuracy.

I think it will be fun to see what happens next season.

Like I said, I may have been wrong to say a team would win 9 of 10 games with extra time off, but I think you were MUCH more wrong to say having extra time off is a disadvantage.

jimmifli

06-24-2013, 10:44 PM

Cool? What's your gig?

I am interviewing this week for the QM position for a company here in the Atlanta area. On the plus side, they have a plant in Buffalo so possibly a few trips home on the company dole. Also, plants in Switzerland and Italy if anyone's into that. ;-)

My current job has advantages too. Most importantly, 3-1/2 day work weeks.

I haven't really worked for a few years. Just starting a new company with a few MBA classmates. Previously I owned a web marketing agency, not much use for all my quant knowledge. I did a lot of corporate video work with a lot of manufacturing facilities. My background helped there.

jimmifli

06-24-2013, 11:14 PM

Somewhat my point a few posts earlier....

Not all inputs are the same. Put a pot on to boil and changes in the ambient atmospheric pressure will affect how long it takes to boil. So will the BTUs to the point that pressure can be dismissed as an input.

Agreed. That does still leave us with stat showing 55% to 45% since 90. Without any more info it's tough verify if it's meaningful, but it seems a reasonable number.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 06:32 AM

Am I throwing the crap or are you?
Clearly, you are.

* You don't read my threads and claim I haven't accounted for things which I explicitly state.
* You attach condition after condition to the analysis which I tell you are unnecessary and after I spend considerable effort, hours even, and show just that, you dismiss it out of hand.
* You credulously latch onto other data even though I show that the data have error in them.
* You attach significance to that data that it doesn't support.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 06:33 AM

I think it will be fun to see what happens next season.
Sure thing. Our bet stands. Either teams with extra time off win 90% or they don't. Seems clear to me. I have no doubt how that's going to turn out. Heck, I'll even cut you a break. They only have to win 2/3.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 06:38 AM

Like I said, I may have been wrong to say a team would win 9 of 10 games with extra time off, but I think you were MUCH more wrong to say having extra time off is a disadvantage.

I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. If you insist on continuing with this strawman, the gloves will come off. But please go ahead and show where I said anything like that, or kindly stfu.

Let's recap ok, since you seem so unlikely to do any work or thinking on your own.

The claim (of the OP) is that (days off) gives the other team an advantage. A significant advantage.

I do not think the data support any positive claims to the contrary i.e. more time off is disadvantageous.

The claim is that more days off confers an advantage. Such a claim is testable. I tested it and it failed.

Another claim, one that you made, is that this advantage should be more pronounced as the season wears on teams.

Of course, my objective here is not to determine exactly what the most significant causes are. My only objective here was to determine if the hypotheses that days off are a significant effect or if that effect has time dependence are valid.

My only point throughout the entire thread has been to disprove that additional days off confer any significant advantage. I have never once tried to make any positive claim one way or the other.

better days

06-25-2013, 07:48 AM

The claim is that it gives the other team an advantage. A significant advantage. Tell that to the 49ers. They came off their bye week last year and lost at home to the Rams.

Enough anecdote. It's a simple matter of going through the schedule in 2012 to flesh this out. Below are the number of extra days rest an opponent had and their record.

Days Record
+1....14-15
3-4...16-18
6-7...14-18

Certainly not a significant advantage. If anything, it's a disadvantage though the difference is not very significant. Generally, teams that you would expect to win did win.

HERE IS WHERE YOU SAID IT IS A DISADVANTAGE TO HAVE EXTRA TIME OFF.

I have maintained from the start that even if you were correct with you numbers, Time off is only ONE VARIABLE in games played.

It is a fact stats can be used to prove a FALSE ANALOGY. This is clearly what you are doing here.

Go ahead & take the gloves off, I was always a street fighter myself anyway.

better days

06-25-2013, 08:07 AM

Sure thing. Our bet stands. Either teams with extra time off win 90% or they don't. Seems clear to me. I have no doubt how that's going to turn out. Heck, I'll even cut you a break. They only have to win 2/3.

Well I already said that I was WRONG to say even teams would win 90% of the time with extra time off. I think 75% is a fair number.

better days

06-25-2013, 08:17 AM

Clearly, you are.

* You don't read my threads and claim I haven't accounted for things which I explicitly state.
* You attach condition after condition to the analysis which I tell you are unnecessary and after I spend considerable effort, hours even, and show just that, you dismiss it out of hand.
* You credulously latch onto other data even though I show that the data have error in them.
* You attach significance to that data that it doesn't support.

Well, I also said from the start it was not worth the time or effort to go through past stats.

We will see this year how often EVEN teams win with extra time off.

Of course it is doubtful a BAD team beats a GOOD team even with the extra time off.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 08:22 AM

HERE IS WHERE YOU SAID IT IS A DISADVANTAGE TO HAVE EXTRA TIME OFF.
Obviously, it was an observation of the data, not my opinion. I was very explicit about this.

I never said anything of the kind. My only point throughout the entire thread has been to disprove that additional days off confer any significant advantage. I have never once tried to make any positive claim one way or the other.

One time, remarking on objective data, I wrote: "(It's) certainly not a significant advantage. If anything, it's a disadvantage though the difference is not very significant."

It was a remark on the data. It was not intended as my opinion. If that was your impression, there's your clarification.

I didn't say it was a disadvantage, I said if anything the data indicate it's a disadvantage. Do you see the difference there? It may seem like a subtle difference, but I assure you it is a real distinction. It was meant as contradiction of the positive claim that time off is an advantage. Nothing more.

Let me be clear, once again, and please bring it up no more.

I am not making any positive claim one way or another. I am not claiming that time off is an advantage. I am not claiming that it is a disadvantage.

The only thing I am doing is questioning the claim that time off is an advantage.

That is how science works. A hypothesis (time off is an advantage) is promoted. The hypothesis is tested. The only thing we can do is either reject the hypothesis or reject the null (it does not confer significant advantage). At no point does one ever accept a hypothesis. All hypotheses are contingent on further observation. At this point, there is no reason to reject the null. That requires evidence. You are welcome to bring it. So far, nothing.

If you want to do some analysis to reject the null, go for it.

I have maintained from the start that even if you were correct with you numbers, Time off is only ONE VARIABLE in games played.
I wholly agree. And I have been explicit on this point. I am only testing this claim.

It is a fact stats can be used to prove a FALSE ANALOGY. This is clearly what you are doing here.
it's only clear if you show it. Baseless assertions are not going to cut it.

Go ahead & take the gloves off, I was always a street fighter myself anyway.
Fine but are you a stats wonk. I am and have given my cred per your request. What's your cred?

So I will ask you the question again...

To put it another way, do you think it's reasonable to expect that a 3+ point favorite would win 11 games out of 19? I think, decidedly yes. If so, then that leaves little for "time off" to explain for the effect.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 08:24 AM

Well I already said that I was WRONG to say even teams would win 90% of the time with extra time off. I think 75% is a fair number.

Done.

better days

06-25-2013, 08:31 AM

Obviously, it was an observation of the data, not my opinion. I was very explicit about this.

I didn't say it was a disadvantage, I said if anything the data indicate it's a disadvantage. Do you see the difference there? It may seem like a subtle difference, but I assure you it is a real distinction. It was meant as contradiction of the positive claim that time off is an advantage. Nothing more.

Let me be clear, once again, and please bring it up no more.

I am not making any positive claim one way or another. I am not claiming that time off is an advantage. I am not claiming that it is a disadvantage.

The only thing I am doing is questioning the claim that time off is an advantage.

That is how science works. A hypothesis (time off is an advantage) is promoted. The hypothesis is tested. The only thing we can do is either reject the hypothesis or reject the null (it does not confer significant advantage). At no point does one ever accept a hypothesis. All hypotheses are contingent on further observation. At this point, there is no reason to reject the null. That requires evidence. You are welcome to bring it. So far, nothing.

If you want to do some analysis to reject the null, go for it.

I wholly agree. And I have been explicit on this point. I am only testing this claim.

it's only clear if you show it. Baseless assertions are not going to cut it.

Fine but are you a stats wonk. I am and have given my cred per your request. What's your cred?

So I will ask you the question again...

MY point has been that even if your stats are correct, time off is only one variable so even if your stats are correct, it does not mean that having extra time off is a disadvantage.

And stats wonk that I am, I am still smart enough to know that stats can be used to prove both sides of an argument correct.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 08:39 AM

MY point has been that even if your stats are correct, time off is only one variable
You're repeating yourself. Yes, there are many variables. Any idiot knows that. However, time off is the claim of this thread. As such, that is my only concern.

even if your stats are correct
They are. You are free to look into them. Until then, they stand unopposed.

it does not mean that having extra time off is a disadvantage.
Jesus haploid christ, how many times do I have to tell you that I am not claiming this?

And stats wonk that I am

People in glass houses...allow me to throw your question back at you:

OK where does your stat cred come from? Self given? Show me where an impartial body gives you cred

stats can be used to prove both sides of an argument correct
And any good statistician can show which one holds water. I poked holes in the website data. Feel free to do the same with mine, with careful, considered analysis. Casual dismissal is weak.

better days

06-25-2013, 09:01 AM

You're repeating yourself. Yes, there are many variables. Any idiot knows that. However, time off is the claim of this thread. As such, that is my only concern.

They are. You are free to look into them. Until then, they stand unopposed.

Jesus haploid christ, how many times do I have to tell you that I am not claiming this?

People in glass houses...allow me to throw your question back at you:

And any good statistician can show which one holds water. I poked holes in the website data. Feel free to do the same with mine, with careful, considered analysis. Casual dismissal is weak.

How many times must I repost the post you made saying having time off was a disadvantage? You said having extra time off was a DISADVANTAGE. It is there for the World to read in black & white. You can claim it is a fact based on the data & not your opinion.

My point has been that even if the data suggests that, other variables are involved in games played & it is only common sense that having extra time off is an advantage not a disadvantage.

I make no claim to be a statistician. I took ONE class in statistics in College. That was enough to make me realize I HATE STATS. As I said they can be used to argue both sides of an argument.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 11:13 AM

How many times must I repost the post you made saying having time off was a disadvantage? You said having extra time off was a DISADVANTAGE.
Taken out of context, I can see how you got that impression, which is why I have been taking great pains to review my position throughout this post and repeatedly clarifying my position. I have said over and over, ad nauseam, without any equivocation, in language that cannot be mistaken...I am not claiming that time off is an advantage. If that one post was confusing to you, I apologize. Let this post be your clarification if none of my other myriad posts in this thread could and talk of it no more.

You can claim it is a fact based on the data & not your opinion.
I don't claim it as fact and it certainly isn't my opinion.

My point has been that even if the data suggests that, other variables are involved in games played & it is only common sense that having extra time off is an advantage not a disadvantage.
In a nutshell, that is the difference between us. You are making the positive claim that it is an advantage. I do not. Neither do I dismiss it. I am skeptical of it though which is why I look to the data. "Common sense" is commonly unreliable as any engineer or scientist worth their salt will tell you. It and $3.87 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

And my point throughout this thread has been that I am skeptical of that claim. I have analyzed the data for 2012 and so far that claim fails to pass the test.

As you say, there are many variables. The claim here is that extra rest confers significant advantage. My objective in this thread is to test that claim and that claim only. I know you're not up on root cause analysis like I am, but this is how we determine if an effect is significant. One effect at a time.

I make no claim to be a statistician. I took ONE class in statistics in College. That was enough to make me realize I HATE STATS. As I said they can be used to argue both sides of an argument.
Great. As soon as you or anyone else choose to argue the other side, let me know. So far, the argument is entirely one-sided.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 11:34 AM

Anyhoo, without further ado, here is the sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhB2KnEgUobYdE1QTjJ3aFNiSERFUjFZUjhLNVBqT3c&usp=sharing) we will use to proceed with the test.

Game time: These are subject to change throughout the season and I will update accordingly.

Rprev, Hprev: The previous start time for the road and home teams. This field is calculated and will update hen [Game time] is.

Tdiff: The difference between [Rprev] and [Hprev]. The formulas used to grab the data are pretty crazy, so if you want to confirm that they are working for a dozen or three, it would be appreciated.

Spread: The final game time spread expressed in points added or subtracted from the road team's score. Unless you object, I will use the spreads posted at FootballLocks.com (http://www.footballlocks.com/nfl_lines.shtml) at noon on the day of the first game of that week (typically Thursday).

Rfinal: Road team final score.

Hfinal: Home team final score.

Result: [Rfinal]+[Spread]-[Hfinal]

e.g. Week 1: NE (-7) @ BUF, [Result]=[NE final score]+[-7]-[Buffalo final score]

jimmifli

06-25-2013, 02:18 PM

better days

06-25-2013, 02:31 PM

Dear god this thread is tedious.

I hate when people say stats can be used to argue both sides of an argument. No they can't. Stats are facts. Interpretations of those facts can be used to argue either side. But that doesn't mean that both interpretations are equally valid. In this case one is logical and the other ignorant.

Being statistically illiterate doesn't miraculously grant one the right to ignore what the statistics mean.

Just as Gebobs used stats to show extra time off can be a disadvantage, stats can be manipulated to show other falsehoods just as having extra time off can be a disadvantage is a falsehood.

better days

06-25-2013, 02:48 PM

And I hate when people use stats to try to prove a point regarding football.

One WR may run a 4.2 while another WR runs a 4.9. Those are stats. Does that mean the faster WR is the better WR? No, of course not, there are many other variables involved. Just as there are other variables involved in most arguments where people try to support their point by using stats..

jimmifli

06-25-2013, 02:50 PM

Just as Gebobs used stats to show extra time off can be a disadvantage
HOLY ****.

He did not. That's an interpretation of the data and NO WHERE IN THIS THREAD did he interpret the data in that way. He observed that the data showed a losing record and was more likely to support someone making the argument that extra rest was a disadvantage. HE DID NOT MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

I hope you're just being disingenuous because you don't like to publicly lose arguments. The alternative is that you are incapable of understanding basic logic.

better days

06-25-2013, 02:58 PM

HOLY ****.

He did not. That's an interpretation of the data and NO WHERE IN THIS THREAD did he interpret the data in that way. He observed that the data showed a losing record and was more likely to support someone making the argument that extra rest was a disadvantage. HE DID NOT MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

I hope you're just being disingenuous because you don't like to publicly lose arguments. The alternative is that you are incapable of understanding basic logic.

I understand logic. And I understand gebobs used stats to show someone could make the argument that having extra time off can be a disadvantage. Had he included ALL of the many variables involved I am sure the results would have been different.
As I said, it is just common sense that having extra time off is an advantage not a disadvantage all things being equal.

Any charts or stats that say otherwise just do not pass the smell test. In other words that means the stats were manipulated by leaving out other pertinent variables that would have affected the outcome. So the results of the stats STINK.

jimmifli

06-25-2013, 03:07 PM

One WR may run a 4.2 while another WR runs a 4.9. Those are stats.
No those are two data points.

Does that mean the faster WR is the better WR?
Is someone making that claim? If so it could be tested. It's possible to look at the correlation between speed and receiving yards and determine how much of a role that variable plays.

No, of course not, there are many other variables involved.
I think one obvious problem here is that you have absolutely no understanding of statistical process, or what the conclusions mean. When you take two factors and check the correlation, you will end up with a value called the R2 (R square). That score tells you how much of the variabilityis explained by the factor. For instance, if you looked as you suggested at the correlation between speed and receiving yards and found an R2 of .30 (this is hypothetical I'm not going to do the work for you), that would mean that 30% of the variability in receiving yards is explained by speed. Or put another way, 70% of the variability in a WR's receiving yards is explained by other variables. That's what statistics can do, it can tell you how strong a factor each variable is.

Just as there are other variables involved in most arguments where people try to support their point by using stats..

And this is the source of the your problem. You made a claim that a single variable (extra rest), made up a huge proportion of the variability of the outcome (winning or losing). Gebob proved you wrong. His argument is exactly that there are other variables involved, he proved it. Extra rest, may explain a small portion of the variability of the outcome, the rest is explained by other variables.

jimmifli

06-25-2013, 03:11 PM

As I said, it is just common sense that having extra time off is an advantage not a disadvantage all things being equal.
Great. That's testable. Gebobs tested it, and it turns out to be not statistically significant (at least over a single season).

Any charts or stats that say otherwise just do not pass the smell test.

hmmm... Something doesn't pass the smell test.

I understand logic.

better days

06-25-2013, 03:15 PM

No those are two data points.

Is someone making that claim? If so it could be tested. It's possible to look at the correlation between speed and receiving yards and determine how much of a role that variable plays.

I think one obvious problem here is that you have absolutely no understanding of statistical process, or what the conclusions mean. When you take two factors and check the correlation, you will end up with a value called the R2 (R square). That score tells you how much of the variabilityis explained by the factor. For instance, if you looked as you suggested at the correlation between speed and receiving yards and found an R2 of .30 (this is hypothetical I'm not going to do the work for you), that would mean that 30% of the variability in receiving yards is explained by speed. Or put another way, 70% of the variability in a WR's receiving yards is explained by other variables. That's what statistics can do, it can tell you how strong a factor each variable is.

And this is the source of the your problem. You made a claim that a single variable (extra rest), made up a huge proportion of the variability of the outcome (winning or losing). Gebob proved you wrong. His argument is exactly that there are other variables involved, he proved it. Extra rest, may explain a small portion of the variability of the outcome, the rest is explained by other variables.

There is no point in arguing this with you. You stats guys can argue all you want using stats, but there are other things involved in football such as heart & determination, competitiveness, toughness etc that can not be measured by stats.
Logic dictates having extra time to rest is an ADVANTAGE not a disadvantage no matter what the stats say.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 05:01 PM

Just as Gebobs used stats to show extra time off can be a disadvantage
Eff you jerkoff. We've been over this a million times.

stats can be manipulated to show other falsehoods just as having extra time off can be a disadvantage is a falsehood.
And now you're calling me a liar. You're a real mothereffing douchebag.

Even if you EVER tried to do even a lick of analysis, no matter how badly done, I wouldn't call you a liar.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 05:03 PM

I understand logic. And I understand gebobs used stats to show someone could make the argument that having extra time off can be a disadvantage.
I said the effect was not significant. Are you brain dead?

gebobs

06-25-2013, 05:12 PM

There is no point in arguing this with you. You stats guys can argue all you want using stats, but there are other things involved in football such as heart & determination, competitiveness, toughness etc that can not be measured by stats.
By all means, stick to those discussions, arse wipe. You are completely out of your depth here.

I don't believe for one second that you ever took a stats class or at least ever passed one. If it was university level, it must have been ECC, Bryant & Stratton, or some other crap school. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I have been completely forthright in my analysis and presentation. I haven't cherry picked data or results like you have. But you have the effing gall to call me a liar. You are a despicable son of a *****.

Logic dictates having extra time to rest is an ADVANTAGE not a disadvantage no matter what the stats say.
You have to show logic, numb numb nuts. You can't assert it. I don't care what you stupid common sense tells you. I don't buy it or a second unless you show me the evidence.

Here's the last lesson for today. Whether rest is an advantage or not is not sufficient. What is on trial here, dummy, in the remote chance that you have cleaned the gobs of disgusting wax out of your filthy ears, is if it gives significant advantage over and above other inputs. Those other inputs - game site, critical injuries, coaching, talent, etc. - are likely to swamp any minuscule effect that additional rest have.

better days

06-25-2013, 06:17 PM

Eff you jerkoff. We've been over this a million times.

And now you're calling me a liar. You're a real mothereffing douchebag.

Even if you EVER tried to do even a lick of analysis, no matter how badly done, I wouldn't call you a liar.

Where did I call you a liar? I just pointed out you manipulated the stats to show having extra time off can be a disadvantage rather than the actual advantage it is.

IT IS IN BLACK & WHITE FOR PEOPLE TO SEE YOU DID THAT.

And you won't call me a liar but you will call me a mothereffing douchebag? NICE.

better days

06-25-2013, 06:28 PM

By all means, stick to those discussions, arse wipe. You are completely out of your depth here.

I don't believe for one second that you ever took a stats class or at least ever passed one. If it was university level, it must have been ECC, Bryant & Stratton, or some other crap school. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I have been completely forthright in my analysis and presentation. I haven't cherry picked data or results like you have. But you have the effing gall to call me a liar. You are a despicable son of a *****.

You have to show logic, numb numb nuts. You can't assert it. I don't care what you stupid common sense tells you. I don't buy it or a second unless you show me the evidence.

Here's the last lesson for today. Whether rest is an advantage or not is not sufficient. What is on trial here, dummy, in the remote chance that you have cleaned the gobs of disgusting wax out of your filthy ears, is if it gives significant advantage over and above other inputs. Those other inputs - game site, critical injuries, coaching, talent, etc. - are likely to swamp any minuscule effect that additional rest have.

I NEVER called you a LIAR, SHOW ME WHERE I DID THAT.

I AGREE with you other effects have more impact than extra rest does. I said that long ago, when I said I did not blame the Bills poor record on the schedule.

My ONLY point was that EVERYTHING else being EQUAL, having extra time off is an ADVANTAGE, not a disadvantage.

And are you DRUNK or just CRAZY?????????????????????????????

better days

06-25-2013, 06:34 PM

The claim is that it gives the other team an advantage. A significant advantage. Tell that to the 49ers. They came off their bye week last year and lost at home to the Rams.

Enough anecdote. It's a simple matter of going through the schedule in 2012 to flesh this out. Below are the number of extra days rest an opponent had and their record.

Days Record
+1....14-15
3-4...16-18
6-7...14-18

Certainly not a significant advantage. If anything, it's a disadvantage though the difference is not very significant. Generally, teams that you would expect to win did win.

And once again here is the post you said "IF ANYTHING, IT'S A DISADVANTAGE THOUGH THE DIFFERENCE IS NOT VERY SIGNIFICANT"

For people that did not see it.

better days

06-25-2013, 06:43 PM

better days

06-25-2013, 07:05 PM

And to say manipulating facts is calling you a liar is just WRONG.

It is like in the movie MY COUSIN VINNIE where Joe Pesci shows the card & compares it to a brick. It has all the attributes a brick should have EXCEPT for substance.

Arguing with you stats guys is the same thing. MANY times your stats have all the attributes of a solid argument, but no REAL SUBSTANCE just as the post that said having extra time off is a disadvantage.

I am NOT calling you a liar, I am just saying you are NOT giving us ALL the facts.

better days

06-25-2013, 07:13 PM

By all means, stick to those discussions, arse wipe. You are completely out of your depth here.

I don't believe for one second that you ever took a stats class or at least ever passed one. If it was university level, it must have been ECC, Bryant & Stratton, or some other crap school. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I have been completely forthright in my analysis and presentation. I haven't cherry picked data or results like you have. But you have the effing gall to call me a liar. You are a despicable son of a *****.

You have to show logic, numb numb nuts. You can't assert it. I don't care what you stupid common sense tells you. I don't buy it or a second unless you show me the evidence.

Here's the last lesson for today. Whether rest is an advantage or not is not sufficient. What is on trial here, dummy, in the remote chance that you have cleaned the gobs of disgusting wax out of your filthy ears, is if it gives significant advantage over and above other inputs. Those other inputs - game site, critical injuries, coaching, talent, etc. - are likely to swamp any minuscule effect that additional rest have.

And you won't call me a liar, but you will call me an arse wipe, a despicable son of a *****, numb numb nuts, dummy.

Well, thanks for not calling me a liar.

In my experience, people that resort to name calling have no good point to argue so they resort to INSULTING NAME CALLING.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 08:05 PM

LOLOLOLOL...You are an ignoramus. I tried to help you and was kind about it. You did nothing but disparage.

Anyone with half a brain can see you are lacking three quarters.

I've gone the extra mile in this thread. You haven't crawled an inch.

better days

06-25-2013, 08:13 PM

Eff you jackoff. You are an ignoramus. I tried to help you and was kind about it. You did nothing but disparage. Go eff yourself.

YEAH, you tried to help me????????? AND you were being KIND????????????????
You IGNORANT AHOLE YOU CAN GO F yourself.

SHOVE YOUR BS STATS where the Sun doesn't shine.

gebobs

06-25-2013, 08:18 PM

YEAH, you tried to help me?????????
You have no clue about real statistical analysis. All you know is your cynicism. I tried to help. Didn't help. You're hard headed.

AND you were being KIND????????????????
I never stooped to the levels you did. The thread speaks for itself.

You IGNORANT AHOLE YOU CAN GO F yourself.
Ahole for sure. Ignorant? No. By your own admission you are ignorant on this topic.

SHOVE YOUR BS STATS where the Sun doesn't shine.
LOL Keep that day job, sparky. Vegas ain't in you future.

better days

06-25-2013, 11:21 PM

You have no clue about real statistical analysis. All you know is your cynicism. I tried to help. Didn't help. You're hard headed.

I never stooped to the levels you did. The thread speaks for itself.

WHAT??????????????? I NEVER called you a name until you REPEATEDLY did so to me.

Ahole for sure. Ignorant? No. By your own admission you are ignorant on this topic.

By my own admission, I am ignorant on statistics. NOT the topic of FOOTBALL.

LOL Keep that day job, sparky. Vegas ain't in you future.

Mouldsie

06-25-2013, 11:50 PM

Can anyone recommend to me a good book on statistical analysis? (Sports related would make it easier for me to tolerate)

Mouldsie

06-25-2013, 11:59 PM

because rhythm has a lot do to with it. Remember these people are all trying to manage personal lives as well. I am just suggesting the more consistent the schedule the more rhythm and cadence they will have in their preparation emotionally, physically and intellectually. Structure is very clearly a benefit in our lives. Working a swing shift presents different challenges than a regular 9 - 5 schedule. Sounds great they have more time to prepare! But that also means they have less time to prepare for another game! And the team is trying to negotiate the schedule as a whole every nuance in which is going to effect their outcome.
This says it best.

I have no doubt the rest is a physical advantage and I believe it's also likely a mental disadvantage. I wonder how we could determine if there is a cause for their being no statistical advantage and if so, why?

If we speculate the above is true... could an opposing coach use that to his advantage somehow? Sure as hell should think about it. Give that rested team more wrinkles than normal and perhaps a faster offensive tempo.

better days

06-26-2013, 07:10 PM

This says it best.

I have no doubt the rest is a physical advantage and I believe it's also likely a mental disadvantage. I wonder how we could determine if there is a cause for their being no statistical advantage and if so, why?

If we speculate the above is true... could an opposing coach use that to his advantage somehow? Sure as hell should think about it. Give that rested team more wrinkles than normal and perhaps a faster offensive tempo.

Well, I am no statistician but I think the reason it APPEARS there is no statistical advantage is the stats were SKEWED.

gebobs said "Generally, teams that you would expect to win did win."

What he did not say is teams you did not expect to win DID NOT WIN.

I believe that is the case & the reason the stats are skewed.

Extra time off is of little to no benefit to bad teams/that don't take advantage of the extra time to game plan. The players may be a little more healthy/rested, but if the system sucks as the Bills defense did last year ( & NOT just the Bills, I am using them as an example known to all on this board) that extra time & rest will not amount to a hill of beans.

Extra time off benefits teams with injured/tired players that can use that extra time to heal/rest & teams with GOOD Coaching that can use the extra time to game plan.

better days

06-26-2013, 07:45 PM

You have no clue about real statistical analysis. All you know is your cynicism. I tried to help. Didn't help. You're hard headed.

I never stooped to the levels you did. The thread speaks for itself.

Ahole for sure. Ignorant? No. By your own admission you are ignorant on this topic.

LOL Keep that day job, sparky. Vegas ain't in you future.

I already told you, I am on SS disability, so my day job does not amount to much, one or two days a week at most.

However, some months back, I started a new hobby. I buy BROKEN IPOD touches on EBAY, repair/refurbish them, new screens, batteries, headphone jacks, whatever is needed to make them like new & pass them on to new happy owners.

since I don't want people complaining "this thing is a piece of crap that broke right after I got it" rigorous testing is a big part of that process. I test a repaired IPOD for about a month.

I always download the IHEART radio app & the Tunein Radio app as part of the process. You can listen to just about any radio station in the Country between those two apps & I have on sports talk radio 99.9% of the time. I also download & listen to football podcasts as part of the process.

Because of this, I have more football information than I'm sure 99% of the board.

BETWEEN MY GENERAL FOOTBALL KNOWLEDGE & THE INFO I GET TESTING IPODS, I WILL PUT MY FOOTBALL ACUMEN UP AGAINST YOURS ANY DAY OF THE WEEK

Typ0

06-26-2013, 09:08 PM

better days

06-26-2013, 09:48 PM

What does having football information have to do with statistical analysis? Getting the data in a useful format is impossible! They protect that so people can't steal it and run their own fantasy leagues. stats.com charges huge fees to use the statistics. I have the skills and knowledge to write scripts that go into nfl.com and grab all their gameday information...the problem is it's a huge amount of work and next year they will change the site format and it will have to be done again. However, I can see something like that working to do statistical analysis and/or run fantasy leagues. Getting the historical data is a whole other issue though. They don't make XML feeds available for people to use....

I am sure there is some value to stats. I don't mean to dismiss their value. However, I think player performance ( not the stats per se) but what people that have watched them in practice & games report as well as injuries, even MINOR ones that don't get reported on a national level are more important.

I want to know that this guy looked crisp, this guy was going full bore, this guy looked like he was dogging it, this guy pulled up lame & limped off the field, more than I want to know stats involved.

I always refer to Trent Edwards when stats are talked about. Trent is a GREAT QB if you are a stats guy. To me & MOST others however, Trent SUCKS.

Typ0

06-26-2013, 10:07 PM

the only thing of any significance in your example is about the guy who pulled up lame and limped off the field....the rest of it is just opinion!

gebobs

06-26-2013, 10:58 PM

Well, I am no statistician but I think the reason it APPEARS there is no statistical advantage is the stats were SKEWED.

gebobs said "Generally, teams that you would expect to win did win."

What he did not say is teams you did not expect to win DID NOT WIN.

I believe that is the case & the reason the stats are skewed.

Extra time off is of little to no benefit to bad teams/that don't take advantage of the extra time to game plan. The players may be a little more healthy/rested, but if the system sucks as the Bills defense did last year ( & NOT just the Bills, I am using them as an example known to all on this board) that extra time & rest will not amount to a hill of beans.

Extra time off benefits teams with injured/tired players that can use that extra time to heal/rest & teams with GOOD Coaching that can use the extra time to game plan.
Occam's razor. All that is needed to explain the effect it that better teams win. The days off are inconsequential. The data support this.

jimmifli

06-26-2013, 11:03 PM

Can anyone recommend to me a good book on statistical analysis? (Sports related would make it easier for me to tolerate)

None that I know of.

better days

06-26-2013, 11:06 PM

Occam's razor. All that is needed to explain the effect it that better teams win. The days off are inconsequential. The data support this.

I can agree with this, BUT what if two EVENLY MATCHED teams meet? Doesn't the team with the EXTRA time off have an ADVANTAGE?

better days

06-26-2013, 11:10 PM

the only thing of any significance in your example is about the guy who pulled up lame and limped off the field....the rest of it is just opinion!

That may be so, BUT MANY MANY MANY MANY others share my opinion that Trent SUCKS!

gebobs

06-26-2013, 11:11 PM

Can anyone recommend to me a good book on statistical analysis? (Sports related would make it easier for me to tolerate)

That is a great idea. Typical courses for Six Sigma run a few thousand.

gebobs

06-26-2013, 11:13 PM

I can agree with this, BUT what if two EVENLY MATCHED teams meet? Doesn't the team with the EXTRA time off have an ADVANTAGE?
I can look into this. But I'm loathe to do so if you're just going to denigrate my effort...as you have. I have already put about 5 hours into analysis that you think suck.

Here's a radical idea...howzabout you do it?

better days

06-26-2013, 11:26 PM

I can look into this. But I'm loathe to do so if you're just going to denigrate my effort...as you have. I have already put about 5 hours into analysis that you think suck.

Here's a radical idea...howzabout you do it?

I did not mean to offend you. I viewed it as I said, like a lawyer trying to pass a card off as a brick. No harm, no foul on what you can get away with. On the other hand, you called me some pretty NASTY names & called my honor into question. ( I swear to God I took ONE statistics class & PASSED albeit that was YEARS ago. I mean SERIOUSLY, if I was going to lie, I would have claimed to have taken a couple classes) So I think we are even.

I REALLY would be interested to see the results of that. And if I am wrong & all things being equal extra time off is NO ADVANTAGE, I would be SHOCKED.

better days

06-26-2013, 11:33 PM

I can look into this. But I'm loathe to do so if you're just going to denigrate my effort...as you have. I have already put about 5 hours into analysis that you think suck.

Here's a radical idea...howzabout you do it?

If you don't want to do the work of looking at past results, I can understand. How about we look forward to the upcoming season as we talked about.

I think only teams that are evenly matched or teams that are GOOD with extra time off need to be considered as we both agree bad teams have no advantage with extra time off.

gebobs

06-27-2013, 08:34 AM

If you don't want to do the work of looking at past results, I can understand. How about we look forward to the upcoming season as we talked about.
I've already set it up.

Anyhoo, without further ado, here is the sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhB2KnEgUobYdE1QTjJ3aFNiSERFUjFZUjhLNVBqT3c&usp=sharing) we will use to proceed with the test.

I think only teams that are evenly matched or teams that are GOOD with extra time off need to be considered as we both agree bad teams have no advantage with extra time off.
I don't agree with that at all. Neither do I disagree with it.

The test will consider all games between teams with more than two days difference in time off. Feel free to review the post above. I've only reposted a portion of it.

Typ0

06-27-2013, 09:09 AM

jimmifli

06-27-2013, 09:30 AM

Interesting approach. I think you need to consider all games and compare the rate of the spread predicting the outcome between the times with the time layovers and the times without the time layovers. Somehow you have to factor in that games aren't very predictable ;)
That's one of the reasons I posted a link earlier. The spread isn't necessarily a good predictor of anything other than betting behaviour. Since the spread isn't stagnant and bettors are aware of the extra days off, you would only be testing the bettors ability to influence the spread based on days of rest.

better days

06-27-2013, 09:50 AM

gebobs

06-27-2013, 10:38 AM

That's one of the reasons I posted a link earlier. The spread isn't necessarily a good predictor of anything other than betting behaviour. Since the spread isn't stagnant and bettors are aware of the extra days off, you would only be testing the bettors ability to influence the spread based on days of rest.
True. I have considered that as well. We have lots of time to flesh out this test. The important thing is to gather as much data that we think might be relevant.

gebobs

06-27-2013, 11:00 AM

I did not mean to offend you. I viewed it as I said, like a lawyer trying to pass a card off as a brick. No harm, no foul on what you can get away with. On the other hand, you called me some pretty NASTY names & called my honor into question.

Sorry. It was in response to your own remarks about me. I didn't really mean it. I was just lashing out. And I may have had a few drinks at the time. I'm usually a happy drunk. Please accept my humble apologies.

gebobs

06-27-2013, 11:54 AM

I can agree with this, BUT what if two EVENLY MATCHED teams meet? Doesn't the team with the EXTRA time off have an ADVANTAGE?
I did a quick filter of the data. Just games between teams with spreads of less than 2 points. I was surprised to find that there were just 29 such games last year. And of those, there were only four games where one team had 2+ more days off. As such, there is nowhere near enough samples. Just anecdote.

For what it's worth, here they are:

Week 4: NYG (+1.5) @ PHI. NYG +2.8 days. PHI 19 - NYG 17
Coming off a big win on Thursday in Week 3, the additional time off wasn't enough to beat the overrated Eagles as Tynes misses a late kick.

Week 7: DAL (-2.0) @ CAR. CAR +6.9 days. DAL 19 - CAR 14
Coming off the bye didn't seem to help Carolina. They led early in the 4th quarter but Dallas managed two FGs in the last 8 minutes and stuffed the Panthers on their last two drives.

Week 8: OAK (+1.5) @ KC. KC +7.1 days. OAK 26 - KC 16
Another bye week fail. The Raiders win this one going away.

Week 9: TB (+1.5) @ OAK. TB +2.8 days. TB 42 - OAK 32
After a big win on Thursday in Week 8, Tampa blows the Raiders away in the 2nd half.

Sample of 4. Can't really say time off helped any of these teams except maybe Tampa. 1-3

As far as "good" teams go, of this bunch, the only team that had a winning record was the Giants. If only they had taken advantag of the time off and beaten the putrid Eagles, they might have been able to defend their title.

better days

06-27-2013, 12:25 PM

I did a quick filter of the data. Just games between teams with spreads of less than 2 points. I was surprised to find that there were just 29 such games last year. And of those, there were only four games where one team had 2+ more days off. As such, there is nowhere near enough samples. Just anecdote.

For what it's worth, here they are:

Week 4: NYG (+1.5) @ PHI. NYG +2.8 days. PHI 19 - NYG 17
Coming off a big win on Thursday in Week 3, the additional time off wasn't enough to beat the overrated Eagles as Tynes misses a late kick.

Week 7: DAL (-2.0) @ CAR. CAR +6.9 days. DAL 19 - CAR 14
Coming off the bye didn't seem to help Carolina. They led early in the 4th quarter but Dallas managed two FGs in the last 8 minutes and stuffed the Panthers on their last two drives.

Week 8: OAK (+1.5) @ KC. KC +7.1 days. OAK 26 - KC 16
Another bye week fail. The Raiders win this one going away.

Week 9: TB (+1.5) @ OAK. TB +2.8 days. TB 42 - OAK 32
After a big win on Thursday in Week 8, Tampa blows the Raiders away in the 2nd half.

Sample of 4. Can't really say time off helped any of these teams except maybe Tampa. 1-3

As far as "good" teams go, of this bunch, the only team that had a winning record was the Giants. If only they had taken advantag of the time off and beaten the putrid Eagles, they might have been able to defend their title.

When we do this (or I should say you do this, as you will be doing the work), I think it might be fun if we both predict who we think will win the game.