Playing Around with First Half Power Ratings in SEC

You Can’t Find Something if You’re Not Looking For It!

Remember when the World Match Play golf championship “resumed” in 1999 with a 64-man bracket that everyone was treating like March Madness on a golf course. ESPN (I think it was ESPN) couldn’t stop RAVING about the DREAM matchups that were “likely” to happen in the later rounds. It was just assumed the #1 seeds would blow through the brackets. Same for the #2 seeds. Day One of coverage began with announcers and pundits making their bracket picks.

Then, on that first day, two different #1 seeds (Davis Love III and Mark O’Meara) lost to #16 seeds. Amazingly, THREE different #2 seeds (Lee Westwood, Ernie Els, and Colin Montgomerie) lost to #15 seeds. Most of the dream late-round matchups were already spiked. Another #1 would lose in the second round (David Duval), and the remaining #2 seed dropped out on day two as well (Vijay Singh).

It became clear quickly…and then was confirmed by the next few similar events that 18 holes “wasn’t enough” for superior golfers to establish their superiority over other elites when elite were all bunched together in the same event. That’s why most tournaments were four rounds anyway! But, even 72 holes wasn’t necessarily enough to separate players who were roughly “equally great” on the bell curve of all golfers. Playing just 18 holes made many matchups a virtual toss-up.

At the time, that got me to thinking about “how long” it took for teams to establish superiority with some level of confidence. It didn’t seem like 9 innings was enough in baseball. That’s why seasons are 162 games! That’s why everyone says “anything can happen in October.” A best of five or a best of seven isn’t enough time for superiority to comfortably lock in and advance.

For other sports, it’s easy to think about “possessions,” and how many possessions it takes to reach the point threshold to cover. It’s about 10-12 possessions in football (except for wild shootouts that have a bunch of turnovers). In basketball, the typical college game has around 67 possessions, the typical NBA game around 100. That seems like PLENTY. Basketball felt like the ideal sport for there being “enough time” for superiority to establish itself. Never any sure things. But, it made sense in general principle.

What about “halftime” lines? Or, 5-inning lines in baseball? If you think of “each time through the heart of a lineup” as a “possession” in baseball (best opportunity to score)…that’s usually only 2-3 “possessions” if you’re betting 5-inning lines. Would you trust your football bets over just 2-3 possessions? Halftimes for football would generally be around 5-6. Maybe it’s 7 in the colleges. Never looked it up. Maybe it’s enough when “great” is playing “lousy.” But, if close teams are playing each other? Especially when points only come in the form of 3-point field goals and 7-point touchdowns?

For basketball, the environment seem manageable for full game and first half handicapping. Let’s say you’re thinking about laying -3.5 points in the first half of a college basketball game that’s likely to have round 33 possessions in those 20 minutes. That’s only two two-point shots? Doesn’t 33 possessions seem like enough time to score only two more buckets than the opponent?

With THAT as a backdrop, it’s at least possible that coming up with ways to handicap first half lines in basketball could be fruitful. If you’re right. There’s time to be right. You’re quarterback isn’t going to take a likely TD off the board with a turnover in a five or six-possession race. Your clean-up hitter isn’t going to strike out with the bases loaded in one of his two or three at bats in a five-inning race. There’s time to express superiority and time to make up for mistakes if you only have to win by a handful of possessions in a relatively long 33-possession battle.

That’s why I’ve always paid extra attention to any handicappers or oddsmakers that had theories about first half market analysis. That’s why I can’t stop tinkering with ideas just in case there is a Holy Grail out there waiting to be found. Maybe there isn’t. Maybe just teams are just always “half of themselves” in a first half, and there’s no reason to hunt around for meaningful indicators.

What if certain teams that lack depth play well in the first 20 minutes before getting tired? What if certain coaches allot player minutes in a way that reduces the chance for a dominant first half because they’re more worried about the second half? Could others believe getting off to a fast start and setting the tone early is most important? What if revenge-minded GOOD teams generally come out breathing fire? What if dregs usually follow up victories with lousy first halves?

Can’t hurt to look!