≡ Menu

Week 12 Game Scripts Data

I’m short on time today, so here are the Game Scripts from week 12. I’ll leave the commentary to you.

TeamH/ROppBoxscorePFPAMarginGame ScriptPassRunP/R RatioOp_POp_ROpp_P/R Ratio

Also, as always, the season page is now updated.

  • Ryan

    Along with the end of Seattle’s 98-game streak of leading or being within a score in the 4th quarter expectedly comes their worst Game Script in the 2013-2016 database. Have all other teams been “dominated” at least once (my definition: Game Script of -10 or worse) in this timeframe?

    • LightsOut85

      I threw just 2013-2015 in Excel and it looks like they have! NE had just 1 instance, and SEA was the only hold-over coming into this season.

      I also looked at +10 & better, and the Jags were the only team who hasn’t dominated anyone in that span – and still hasn’t looking at 2016 GS just now. (CHI had just 1)

  • Richie

    Off topic question:

    I occasionally hear gamblers complaining that the longer PAT rule is affecting gambling. They say it is changing the betting lines, and making the games tougher to bet on.

    This sounds like hooey to me. I can’t believe this is affecting any games by more than a point or two, and not that many games finish within a point or two of the point spread.

    Is there any logic to the idea of a longer PAT “ruining” point spread gambling?

    • Tom

      Richie – I’m not an expert at this, but picking games against the spread is a kind of hobby for (meaning, I play Pigskin Pick’Em with a bunch of office folks). I think the new PAT rule has had an effect, but I couldn’t tell you how or why or by how much. As you probably know, the most common point deficit for an NFL game is 3 points (14%, since 1970), followed by 7 (8%) and then 10 (6%). Well, I expect that to change *slightly* since the PAT isn’t automatic and going for two might be more desirable, etc. As far as anything being “ruined”, I don’t think so, you just have to kind of tweak things a bit…the more I think about it, it’s probably so minor as to not be a factor, but maybe we’ll know more in a few years.

      • Richie

        I feel like gamblers do a lot of whining and looking for trends that don’t really exist.

        I took a quick look at all games with a 3-point spread over the 10-year period 2000-2009. There were 480 such games. Of those games, 93 (19%) of them ended within 2 points of the spread. That doesn’t seem like much room for extra points to make much of a difference (in that admittedly limited sample).

        • Tom

          Right, exactly…I suppose tonight Kai Forbath can miss an extra point and some dude who took the Vikings +3.5 could lose if the score ends up being 13-17. Or, the Vikings get killed 31-13 and Forbath misses an extra point and the guy loses anyway…

    • Deacon Drake

      NFL has always been damn near impossible to consistently win against the spread. I think a big part of it is that the home field adjustment is only 3 points (due to the skill of the officials, lesser so the players), which is conveniently the same value as a FG, by which many games are decided. Basically, two equal teams will see a point spread between 2.5 and 4.

      Teams have typically game planned in 3 and 7 point scenarios, which will see a lot of games decided by 3 or 4 points. The addition of the 2 point conversion obviously had an effect on scoring and 4th quarter strategy, allowing teams to rally. This really ended up having negligible effects to betting results because both favorites and underdogs can take advantage.

      The PAT change actually has to do with the skill of players involved on good and bad teams… teams continually put themselves in poor positions by emphasizing leg strength over accuracy. I could see this having an effect if bad teams primarily employed bad kickers and vice versa, but that isn’t the case… the numbers will regress, and as always, Vegas will win.

    • pwm

      As an occasional small-stakes gambler, I don’t think there’s been a significant effect on outcomes or it makes games any harder to bet on.

      I do think it may be slightly altering the generally accepted “discontinuity” at exactly 3 or 7 points. From what I’ve read of breakdowns from more professional/experienced NFL gamblers, 3 and 7 can be important decision points, such that they’d never touch a -2.5 spread, but jump all over -3.5 (or similar with -6.5 vs -7), since a lot of close games do in fact end with that exact 3 (or 7) point differential. So more missed XPs could mean that it’s less beneficial to make decisions based on hard cutoffs like that.

  • Tom

    Ran the GS numbers for SOS. Like what I did a few weeks ago, I’m not to interested in how the SRS GS compares to straight GS, more interested in how the SRS GS numbers compare to “regular” SRS. I’ve sorted the table by the biggest positive difference. What it says is that Denver, KC and Philly have been in games where it’s pretty close, but later in the game they open their lead (or the other team melts down, etc.). This doesn’t necessarily mean these teams aren’t as good as their SRS says they are, just another way of looking at the team. On the other hand, Cleveland Chicago and the Niners have kept games closer than they’re SRS would indicate (even though they’re still “bad” teams), as opposed to the Jags, who’ve just been basically losing their games solidly week in and week out.