Don't bet against Chuckstrong. Don't bet against Adrian Peterson. Don't bet against Aaron Rodgers. Don't bet against JJ Watt. Don't bet against a retiring Ray Lewis. Don't bet on a rookie quarterback. Don't bet against AJ Green in garbage time. You're going to have to violate some of these to make your picks? You know why that doesn't bother me, because I really don't care. I take a look at team Pythagorean winning percentage (man, Seattle and New England look really good) and then for the playoffs, I add in the offensive and defensive interception rates (New England looks even better). Why don't I look at interception rates for every game? Because I don't have the time to do it for four times as many games, but more importantly, it is actually more subjective and not just something I can input into a pre-created Excel model. For example, among teams in the playoffs, New England was the best at not throwing interceptions and the second best at catching interceptions. That's a pretty scary combination going into the playoffs. But does that really tell you much about their odds of winning? Not really. So I'll take a look and mention it if I think its relevant, but only because I step my game up for the playoffs. Well, my statistical analysis game steps up. So far, it doesn't look like my style, humor or overall interestingness steps up. But back to Chuckstrong. Leukemia vs. retirement. What do you think is the bigger motivator? You know what I think the biggest motivator is? Talent and game plan. Also, looking at interceptions might give me a better idea of who I think will win outright, but it doesn't help against the spread. Well, I guess it does to some degree, if you are subjectively more confident a team will win outright, then you inherently feel more confident that that team will cover. Those are correlating feelings. Where am I? What's going on?
