Having a deep love of stats to explain the ordinary, I have once again decided on predicting the outcome of this year’s Super B…er….Big Game.
I took a look at both NO and IND’s mean and notational scoring by quarter, and by game. Notational meaning that the later games were given much more weight than the earlier games. Mean meaning a pure average of all scores.
Here’s how the notational scores beared out:
IND 1st quarter offense: 6.9
IND 2nd: 7
IND 3rd: 3.2
IND 4th: 4.9
NO 1st: 5.0
NO 2nd: 8.6
NO 3rd: 5.1
NO 4th: 5.1
Mean scoring:
IND 1st: 6.4
IND 2nd:7.4
IND 3rd: 4.4
IND 4th: 4.9
NO 1st: 5.0
NO 2nd: 8.5
NO 3rd: 4.9
NO 4th: 6.5
Putting this together and averaging the two we begin to see a good trend:
IND 5.0/8.5/5.0/5.8
NO 6.6/7.2/3.8/4.9
The notational trend of scoring suggests that NO is currently scoring a few points more than their average in the 3rd quarter of games and a sizeable amount more in the 2nd, but a lot less in the 4th. For IND, they are scoring more points in the 1st, a few less in the 2nd, and much less in the 3rd.
What does this all mean?
In the first, look for IND to be outscoring NO.
in the 2nd, look for NO to outscoring IND, with a true shootout quarter taking place.
3rd quarter will be highly on the defense on both sides, with NO continuing momentum and trend of prior weeks and gaining or extending their lead
4th quarter will be more point-driven but not as much as the 2nd quarter, as NO holds on for dear life and wins.
In fact, looking at NO’s prior wins both at home and away vs. ATL, as well as their OT win vs WAS, they won all 3 games in the same fashion as described above. The game may well be decided by FGs and special teams (watching for fumbles by the opposition).
Pure notational outcome shows NO easily scoring more and IND scoring less in both the 2nd and 3rd quarters, but NO scoring less in the 4th. A very entertaining game that will see NO win on these trends.
Pure mean outcome gives IND early lead, and a slow but steady NO comeback into the 3rd quarter, who will hold on.
Common opponents include those lay-down losses by IND..a big asterisk here. But look at the other games they have in common: @ Mia…where NO won by 2 scores, while IND in same position won by just 4 points. @ NE: NO won by 3 TDs, while IND squeaked out a 1 point win. The games they had vs Buf can’t really be factored, as IND layed down by a bunch there.
I’m confident, therefore in predicting a 24-22 NO victory. If you’re the gambling sort, take IND and the under
My private notes on playing this wager..Who knows? It could become your secret as well.
Wager fields larger than 8 horses.
Play along this scheme:
Horses 1234 in first, 1234 2nd, 1234 3rd, ALL in 4th
1234 1st, 1234 2nd, ALL 3rd, 1234 4th
1234 1st, ALL 2nd, 1234 3rd, 1234 4th
ALL 1st, 1234 2nd, 1234 3rd, 1234 4th
Avoid races where 2 horses projected to go off at under 4-1 in the first 2 positions, or 2nd-3rd.
Best moneymaker is if you find 2 horses in 1st-2nd or 2nd-3rd positions that will go off from 4-1 to 9-1.
9 horse field with this approach costs $57.60
10 horses 67.20
11 horses 76.80
12 horses 86.40
My private notes on playing this wager..Who knows? It could become your secret as well.
Wager fields larger than 8 horses.
Play along this scheme:
Horses 1234 in first, 1234 2nd, 1234 3rd, ALL in 4th
1234 1st, 1234 2nd, ALL 3rd, 1234 4th
1234 1st, ALL 2nd, 1234 3rd, 1234 4th
ALL 1st, 1234 2nd, 1234 3rd, 1234 4th
Avoid races where 2 horses projected to go off at under 4-1 in the first 2 positions, or 2nd-3rd.
Best moneymaker is if you find 2 horses in 1st-2nd or 2nd-3rd positions that will go off from 4-1 to 9-1.
9 horse field with this approach costs $57.60
10 horses 67.20
11 horses 76.80
12 horses 86.40
Here’s my 10 from the most-deserving on down:
Blyleven
Dawson
McGwire
Morris
Parker
Raines
Galaragga
Alomar
Martinez (Edgar)
Baines
Holding the door open but not in:
Mattingly
Dale Murphy
McGriff
Best of the rest:
Lee Smith
Barry Larkin
All were measured by de facto standards HOF Monitor and HOF Standard, plus # of stats in Black and Grey Ink, as seen on www.baseball-reference.com I judged further comparing similarity scores and seeking who had more HOFs in comparative numbers.
Randy Johnson is a bonafide HOF of course. Going back to age 32 one active player seems to be similar to Randy’s past: A.J. Burnett.
Hit the dime super once again: $39.40 was the payoff.
Also hit with the #8 $10 show bet, earning me $13
