I will start with this basic query (In the PlayOffs, WAS is an Away Dog off a Win as an Away Dog):
PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD 16-43/27.1%/19.7/26.2
I will post four set of figures in this order: SU W-L/SU %/OFF points/DEF points. The ATS results are not that stark; the differences in SU results underscore just how unusually efficient WAS has been.
PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD and p:points/p:rushes > 0.92 3-17/15.0%/18.9/28.4
PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD and p:points/p:passes > 1.25 1-8/11.1%/15.6/23.9
I omitted "p:WAD" in this next query to generate a much larger sample size and investigate AD's off a high-scoring game for at least one team involved in the AD's previous game.
PO = 1 and AD and (p:points > 36.5 or po:points > 28.5) 13-39/25.0%/17.8/27.5
Since I have no idea how hampered Hurts will be by his injury, I just bet WAS's team total Under.
WAS TT Under 20.5/-115 (1.5 units)
I am logging off for eating dinner and watching DVDs so I will not be responding for hours. Good luck everybody.
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
I will start with this basic query (In the PlayOffs, WAS is an Away Dog off a Win as an Away Dog):
PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD 16-43/27.1%/19.7/26.2
I will post four set of figures in this order: SU W-L/SU %/OFF points/DEF points. The ATS results are not that stark; the differences in SU results underscore just how unusually efficient WAS has been.
PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD and p:points/p:rushes > 0.92 3-17/15.0%/18.9/28.4
PO = 1 and AD and p:WAD and p:points/p:passes > 1.25 1-8/11.1%/15.6/23.9
I omitted "p:WAD" in this next query to generate a much larger sample size and investigate AD's off a high-scoring game for at least one team involved in the AD's previous game.
PO = 1 and AD and (p:points > 36.5 or po:points > 28.5) 13-39/25.0%/17.8/27.5
Since I have no idea how hampered Hurts will be by his injury, I just bet WAS's team total Under.
WAS TT Under 20.5/-115 (1.5 units)
I am logging off for eating dinner and watching DVDs so I will not be responding for hours. Good luck everybody.
WAS's DEF has been pretty weak consistently. While Hurts's injury should allow WAS to concentrate more on Barkley, this query makes WAS's prospects look dim:
PO = 1 and tS(o:points < 16.5, N = 7) < 1.5 and po:points > 26.5 7-19-1/26.9%/18.9/28.5
ATS: 6-20-1 (-8.9, 23.1%)
In the playoffs teams whose DEF held just 0 or 1 of their last 7 opponents to less than 17 points while allowing their last opponent to score 27 points or more cover just 23.1% of the time.
Good luck everybody.
WAS's DEF has been pretty weak consistently. While Hurts's injury should allow WAS to concentrate more on Barkley, this query makes WAS's prospects look dim:
PO = 1 and tS(o:points < 16.5, N = 7) < 1.5 and po:points > 26.5 7-19-1/26.9%/18.9/28.5
ATS: 6-20-1 (-8.9, 23.1%)
In the playoffs teams whose DEF held just 0 or 1 of their last 7 opponents to less than 17 points while allowing their last opponent to score 27 points or more cover just 23.1% of the time.
WAS's DEF has been pretty weak consistently. While Hurts's injury should allow WAS to concentrate more on Barkley, this query makes WAS's prospects look dim: PO = 1 and tS(o:points < 16.5, N = 7) < 1.5 and po:points > 26.5 7-19-1/26.9%/18.9/28.5 ATS: 6-20-1 (-8.9, 23.1%) In the playoffs teams whose DEF held just 0 or 1 of their last 7 opponents to less than 17 points while allowing their last opponent to score 27 points or more cover just 23.1% of the time. Good luck every.
So in those 27 games, how many were favored and how many were getting points?
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
WAS's DEF has been pretty weak consistently. While Hurts's injury should allow WAS to concentrate more on Barkley, this query makes WAS's prospects look dim: PO = 1 and tS(o:points < 16.5, N = 7) < 1.5 and po:points > 26.5 7-19-1/26.9%/18.9/28.5 ATS: 6-20-1 (-8.9, 23.1%) In the playoffs teams whose DEF held just 0 or 1 of their last 7 opponents to less than 17 points while allowing their last opponent to score 27 points or more cover just 23.1% of the time. Good luck every.
So in those 27 games, how many were favored and how many were getting points?