Official Texans vs. Chiefs Game Thread, 09/18/2016

[Arky]

Originally Posted by Arky

...........Also, IIRC, New England as a home underdog has some kind of really nice record which I'm sure will come out in the next few days (and I will post it once I see it)........

Found this in another forum but have no reason to doubt it to be true:

"...Pats are 11-1 ATS and 10-2 straight up as home dogs since 2001"

So, that is the trend the Texans have to overcome if they are to leave Foxboro with the W.....

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Arky

Found this in another forum but have no reason to doubt it to be true:



So, that is the trend the Texans have to overcome if they are to leave Foxboro with the W.....

All things NFL suffer from small sample size because of the tiny amount of games, so statistical analysis in the NFL suffers compared to other sports. Additionally, NE's overall record since 2001 is 182-58, which is better than 12-4 on average. And under Brady they are 92-15 at home.

So in a very small sample size of 12 games, NE is slightly better as a home dog than they are overall, and they are slightly worse than they are at home overall.

[Arky]

Originally Posted by barrett

All things NFL suffer from small sample size because of the tiny amount of games, so statistical analysis in the NFL suffers compared to other sports. Additionally, NE's overall record since 2001 is 182-58, which is better than 12-4 on average. And under Brady they are 92-15 at home.

So in a very small sample size of 12 games, NE is slightly better as a home dog than they are overall, and they are slightly worse than they are at home overall.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. Using your numbers:

182-58 = 75.8% win percentage

12-4 = 75% win percentage

92-15 (Brady@home) = 86% win percentage

Yes, 11-1 or 10-2 are small sample sizes but they do represent trends. 5-3 or 12-10 or 148-127 are not really trends - those are more like coinflip results.....My point is, people will wager large amounts of money on trends and trend bettors will be all over New England on Thursday....

And I guess another factor here is most of New England's recent outstanding numbers have been compiled with Brady and Belichick running the show. Garoppolo was looking like he could carry the load no problem but now, we will probably see Brissett and his numbers are essentially 0-0 (with a nice relief job yesterday)....

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Arky

I suppose that's one way to look at it. Using your numbers:

182-58 = 75.8% win percentage

12-4 = 75% win percentage

92-15 (Brady@home) = 86% win percentage

Yes, 11-1 or 10-2 are small sample sizes but they do represent trends. 5-3 or 12-10 or 148-127 are not really trends - those are more like coinflip results.....My point is, people will wager large amounts of money on trends and trend bettors will be all over New England on Thursday....

And I guess another factor here is most of New England's recent outstanding numbers have been compiled with Brady and Belichick running the show. Garoppolo was looking like he could carry the load no problem but now, we will probably see Brissett and his numbers are essentially 0-0 (with a nice relief job yesterday)....

I wasn't totally dismissing the numbers, just pointing out that they are basically equally great at home no matter what the point spread says.

Now if you are betting the line, than the 11-1 ATS is a huge deal since being better than .500 ATS is tough. If you are trying to pick a winner, all you need to know is NE at home.

Plus the small sample size like I said. We are talking about 12 total games spread across 16 seasons, and with Brady out, there is not a single player from over half of those teams playing in this game. So you would be picking winners of Thursday's game based on things Willie McGinest and Deon Branch did a decade ago.

Bottom line is NE is hard to beat at home, but obviously a 3rd string QB makes that easier.

[Arky]

Originally Posted by barrett

I wasn't totally dismissing the numbers, just pointing out that they are basically equally great at home no matter what the point spread says.

Now if you are betting the line, than the 11-1 ATS is a huge deal since being better than .500 ATS is tough. If you are trying to pick a winner, all you need to know is NE at home.

Plus the small sample size like I said. We are talking about 12 total games spread across 16 seasons, and with Brady out, there is not a single player from over half of those teams playing in this game. So you would be picking winners of Thursday's game based on things Willie McGinest and Deon Branch did a decade ago.

Bottom line is NE is hard to beat at home, but obviously a 3rd string QB makes that easier.

Sure, no disagreement here. I think the trend bettor just sees the fact that 11 out of 12 times as a home dog, historically, the New England organization has got the job done. And 10 out of 12 times, they've walked away the straight up winner - a trend the Texans will have to overcome. So, just sayin', it will be a big fat ostrich feather in their cap if they (the Texans) can pull it off....

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Arky

Sure, no disagreement here. I think the trend bettor just sees the fact that 11 out of 12 times as a home dog, historically, the New England organization has got the job done. And 10 out of 12 times, they've walked away the straight up winner - a trend the Texans will have to overcome. So, just sayin', it will be a big fat ostrich feather in their cap if they (the Texans) can pull it off....

One thing to add to this.

I was listening to the radio today and they mentioned that this is only the 3rd time since 2006 that NE has been a home underdog. The other two were against Peyton Manning's 1st Broncos team, and against the Bengals after NE was killed by KC in 2014 (the famous "on to Cincinnati" game). So the other 10 games in the 10-2 trend are all over a decade old.