ROTOWIRE.COM NFL MLB / Minors NBA NHL GOLF RACING    COMMUNITY FORUMS PODCASTS MYROTOWIRE ASK AN EXPERT GAMES

Then There Were Four: Conference Championship Prediction

And then there were four. The Patriots are the favorites to take home the Lombardi trophy, but at this point, it's anyone's game. The Pats dominate on offense, the Ravens and Niners dominate on defense, and Eli Manning is continuing his career year through the playoffs, getting hot at the right time. The highlight of the weekend doesn't come from the Niners vs. Saints game (which was one of the most exciting playoff games in recent memory), but rather from the Patriots vs. Broncos game. Tom Brady unleashes a 48-yard punt on third down.

Overall: 22-13-1

Last Week's Predictions:

Houston +7.5 at Baltimore: WIN

This game went as expected. Both teams have solid defenses and mediocre offenses that rely heavily on the running back. Jacoby Jones made a few costly mistakes for special teams, and the Texans suffered as a result. Baltimore will have their hands full in Foxborough this week.

Conference Finals Prediction:

San Francisco -2.5 vs New York

Don't get it twisted, New York should not have beaten Green Bay. Were it not for the turnovers and dropped passes, we would be talking about the Niners going into Lambeau. But, c'est la vie. San Francisco showed that their No. 8 opponent-adjusted passing offense can actually put up points, but they face an even better Giants passing offense that ranks sixth in efficiency. The tipping point, however, is the 49ers defense. Justin Smith had a downright dominant game against the Saints and his Niners' defense ranks fourth in the league, and the next best remaining defense in the playoffs behind Baltimore. Remember these two teams played earlier this year in a close, back-and-forth game. But, Justin Smith came up big, knocking down Eli Manning's pass attempt on fourth down and sealing a 27-20 victory. Interestingly enough, one of San Francisco's top comparable teams is the 2005 Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers. Give me San Francisco by a field goal.

The most accurate weekly projections from numberFire.com based on wall-street style analytics. numberFire outpredicted two of the most trafficked fantasy sites 70% of the time and are 54-55% against the spread over the last 3 seasons.

Comments

By: Mark Stopa
On: 1/18/2012 9:41:00 AM		 If you want to pick SF, that's fine. But saying NY should not have beaten GB? I don't follow that at all. NY dominated in every aspect of the game. To the extent you're talking about luck, I think SF had more of it against NO than NY did against GB.
 
By: Chris Liss
On: 1/18/2012 10:24:00 AM		 On the play where Smith knocked down Eli's pass, Patrick Willis tackled Jake Ballard, but it wasn't called, too. Hard to say what would have happened had the Packers not had those drops, or Rodgers not missed some open receivers. But the Giants should have had another fumble, and GB really should only have scored 13 (had they not been gifted a first down on 3rd and 10 due to a horrendous roughing the passer call).
 
By: Keith Goldner
On: 1/18/2012 11:01:00 AM		 Yeah, I'm not denying New York outplayed Green Bay, they absolutely did - and New York won as a result. But, I believe Green Bay would still win 2/3 times, and the numbers agree. There is going to be variation in every team's performance which is what allows for the possibility of upsets. I'm not talking about luck, just this normal variation.
 
By: rkinigson
On: 1/18/2012 11:08:00 AM		 Drops and turnovers are part of the game. Otherwise, why not say that if it was not for the Giants scoring more points than Green Bay they would not have won?

The Giants are much like the New York Yankees in that they seem to turn it up a notch once the post-season begins. They dominated Atlanta and Green Bay and, if they continue to perform at that level, have a real chance of beating San Francisco. And, yes, I am biased.

Go Big Blue!
 
By: thepearl-673
On: 1/18/2012 2:41:00 PM		 Somehow, I thought that the Yanks were beaten in the first round of the playoffs this year.
But, on the Giants-Packers game, Keith is talking big picture. As in, the Packers would win most of the times that the two teams would play. You guys are analyzing one of the games that the Giants would have won. If they played 100 times and the Packers win 65, when you analyze any individual game, it will seem that the winner should have won that unique game because of turnovers, drops, or whatever. If they played again this weekend, it would not be a carbon copy. The fumbles might go the other way. Keith's point is that most of the time that Packers team would win over that Giants team. Not that the Packers should have won that particular game.
 
By: matthewthill7
On: 1/18/2012 8:35:00 PM		 To really beat that horse to death, GB scored a TD on a drive that should have ended with a 4th & 10 punt deep in their own territory, but was instead extended by the zebras because Rodgers was torso-tackled and his head hit another defensive player on the way to the ground. And the Jennings fumble that wasn't was bad, too. GB got little artificial help in that game - dropped Packer passes? Sure, maybe they are cumulatively worth 7-10 points. But GB was spotted 7-10 points anyway off of the aforementioned refereeing gaffes, so it all came out in the wash.

The big story is the pass rush - if a team can generate an effective rush with the standard personnel and no funny blitzes, they have a great chance of winning. Big Blue was all over Rodgers this weekend (4 sacks, 5 hits), as were the Patriots over Tebow (5 sacks, 8 hits) and the 49ers over Brees (3 sacks, 11 hits). This isn't a revelation, but it's more telling than simply saying "defense wins"; specifically, the pass rush allows the secondary to have all hands on deck and make these QBs work.
 
By: thepearl-673
On: 1/18/2012 9:14:00 PM		 Yes, we know what happened in that game. If they played again it would not happen the same. And if they played three times it would be a third set of plays/circumstances. Keith is saying that Green Bay would probably win those other two games. And we'd be analyzing how Cobb ran back a kick-off. Or that if Nicks hadn't fallen, Woodson wouldn't have had a pick 6. Or how after Rodgers looked off of his game in that first game, how he bounced back for his best game in the next. Everyone agrees what happened in the last game. The Giants won by playing the best on Sunday. The next meeting, they might not.
 
By: Chris Liss
On: 1/18/2012 10:53:00 PM		 Thepearl - not sure I really buy that. I think the best way to think of it is that Green Bay was a 65/35 favorite before the game based on past results, but the Giants won, and that's that. The idea that you can replicate the relevant conditions and replay the game 100 times with Green Bay winning 65 is total fiction. This isn't coin flips or cards, this is a one-shot deal, and probability here is merely an analogy, not a fact as it is with repeatable conditions. Once the other team wins (and not because of a botched punt or some other fluke, but soundly wins), that's the end of it. If the Packers played the Giants this week, they would be slightly different teams - the experiment can never be run again.
 
By: thepearl-673
On: 1/19/2012 8:41:00 AM		 I did come up with the 65/35. In the third comment Keith used 2 of 3. I guess I like the Giants more than he. Your point is my same point about not being able to replicate that game. This all started because Keith said that NY should not have beaten GB, and the numbers supported that. Others took exception to it, but I understand Keith's view. I thought I could help others see it, also. Apparently I can't.
The Rams beat the Saints soundly in regular season. In that game they were not lucky, nor did the game turn on a fluke play. But the numbers would suggest that the Saints would win most of the time that game is played. That is a more extreme example of the same point. The Rams should have won that game because they outplayed the Saints, but if that game was played several times, the Saints should win the majority. Therefore, you can say (as Keith did with the Packers- Giants) that the Rams should not have won that game. As you say, it can't be ran again, so we will never know, but I just see where Keith is coming from.
I didn't comment to beat a dead horse, and it's not that important, as the better team won that particular game. So, I'll quietly move on.
 
By: Keith Goldner
On: 1/19/2012 9:13:00 AM		 Thepearl - You've got it exactly right. While I understand the game could never be replicated in reality, your analysis is dead on. The probability may come from historical results, but that doesn't mean it's not accurate. If you could only flip a coin one time and it landed heads, you're not then going to say it was always going to land heads.
 
By: Chris Liss
On: 1/19/2012 9:26:00 AM		 With the Saints-Rams, the Rams won because the Saints came out flat. They came out flat for a variety of reasons, which would likely no longer be the case if they played again. When you handicap a game, you take into account not only the team strength, but also the circumstances.
 
By: gooklaw
On: 1/19/2012 6:24:00 PM		 Trigger is thankful he's safe in Victorville!
 
By: Erik Siegrist
On: 1/20/2012 5:51:00 AM		 Past results do not guarantee future performance, which I'm pretty sure Keith understands. ;) If he'd hedged his statement this debate wouldn't have happened, but saying the Giants "should not" have won and then providing excuses for the losers opens up a whole shipping container of worms.
 

Leave a comment

Commenting is restricted to registered users only. Please register or login now to submit a comment.

Tell Someone

  • Digg it
  • submit to reddit reddit
  • Add to Mixx!

Recent Favorites

How BABIP Affects the Value of Strikeouts and Walks
The league-average batting-average-on-balls-in-play (BABIP) has been on a downward trajectory for the last half decade, something that has implications for the values of different at-bat outcomes. BABIP is down precipitously this season (.289), though it's hard to tell to what extent that's due to all the shifting defenses (better data on where balls are hit have enabled this), or is simply just an April cold-weather/small sample anomaly.
NHL Playoff Observations -- Monday
Just a few things that caught my eye ...
  • Alexander Semin was on the wrong side of the grocery stick most of the night. You know, that spot between the back-up goalie and the rest of the team ... the one where the dead wood goes so it doesn't get in the way of on-the-fly changes.
  • Honey badger don't care. Honey badger doesn't give a $%!&.  T.J. Oshie gave up four inches and 50 pounds to Dustin Penner, but he didn't care. Then again, honey badger didn't care when he hit Rick Nash a few years ago, either. I wonder if the NHL would let me get a Blues #74 jersey with Honey Badger on the back.
Buy Lowest
Every year, we hear advice about how it's time to "buy low" on struggling stars like Albert Pujols, Giancarlo Stanton and Robinson Cano. "Get them now for cheap before they heat up!" Except that the market for superstars - at least in competitive leagues - usually doesn't move much after one bad month. (Whether it should in these cases is another question). It's more likely that the Pujols and Stanton owners are doubling down, figuring that only a hot streak from a player of that caliber can undo the damage that's already been done.

That doesn't mean you can't take advantage of the market's early overreaction, but you'll have to aim a little lower and take on quite a bit more risk. The players listed below are those who should be available at an actual discount.

Fantasy Rookies
Now that the 2012 NFL Draft is complete and rosters look about the way they will when training camps open in late July, it’s time to start the speculation train full steam ahead to fantasy draft days. Many players taken in this class will have a fantasy impact, some immediate, some in small spurts as rookies and some not for years to come.
Cowboys Draft: First Blush Thoughts
My initial reactions to the 2012 Dallas draft crop.

RSS Feeds