Handicapping Workshop: Is it Time To Develop “Deflated” or “Shrink-Wrapped” Power Ratings?
New Idea for Sports Handicappers/Bettors
I was saying the other day that WNBA “market” Power Ratings felt too spread out. The good teams, while good, weren’t as good as they were being priced. Some of the lesser teams weren’t as bad. It’s like “real” Power Ratings had been written on a balloon…and somebody had blown too much air in the balloon.
Phoenix shouldn’t have been -11.5 at Dallas
Indiana shouldn’t have been large or medium underdogs to Minnesota/Las Vegas
New York has been overpriced since Jonquel Jones got hurt
Golden State’s been much better that market prices for WEEKS
Of course, I made the same general point through the NBA Playoffs…
Boston and Cleveland turned out to be fake juggernauts
OKC had some air in its rating, especially on the road
Indiana was better than market prices for WEEKS
And, I’ve written variations of that through several March Madnesses. Duke was inflated entering the Final Four this past season. I think the only #1 Dance seed who blew past expectations in recent years was UCONN from two seasons ago. During our ‘24 SEC basketball coverage, there were stretches where Auburn, Florida, and Alabama were being priced better than they actually were…while Missouri was a hidden elite until getting tired.
NFL? Jeez, I’ve used that “balloon” analogy often through the NFL in various writing projects through the years. Kansas City caused headaches this past season because the Chiefs kept winning games by such small margins. They’d “win games” like they were an 87, but with scoreboard margins that suggested they were an 82 or something. If Eli Manning was winning a Super Bowl, I was ghostwriting somewhere that the fundamentally sound Giants weren’t getting enough market respect through the playoffs and against the Patriots.
And, even in our countless sharps reports since this project began, the very fact that so many old-school (and new school) “dog lovers” EXIST is de facto evidence that “market” Power Ratings are too spread out. MONEY THAT MATTERS is betting in a way that brings numbers down once they’ve risen too high.
How could the market over-inflate?
Media coverage overrates extremes on both ends of the spectrum…over-celebrating top teams (hero-worship journalism) and over-criticizing bad teams (click-bait journalism). Markets are influenced by media coverage (particularly oddsmakers and recreational bettors).
Recreational bettors love betting favorites (and Overs). Though sports books don’t mind taking positions against the public…they still often had to lift lines in a way that keeps risk from getting too one-sided. That pushes good teams higher and bad teams lower in equivalent “market” Power Ratings.
Some stat models overreact to performance outliers in a way that doesn’t incorporate “regression” enough. So…teams on a hot run are seen as GREAT much longer than they should be…and teams going through tough stretches aren’t as bad as they seem. Even analytic approaches from sharps can be subject to putting too much air between teams. Some respected analytics-types were writing “Is Oklahoma City the Greatest Team Ever” articles a few weeks ago…before the team struggled to cover any road playoff games until the very end. (Or, “running up the score on dregs” can fool models the same way it fools the media.)
I’m sure we could think of other similar influences if we put our heads together.
I’ve never fully considered, or expressed that studying box score stats AND sharp betting in this writing project FORCES the conclusion that “market” Power Ratings are too spread out. It’s slowly, quietly become an OVER-RIDING THEME. Furthermore, it’s A REALITY that should be addressed more often and more aggressively.
So, that’s what’s special about today’s workshop brainstorm. What are we going to do about it?