The Big One

[Michelangelo]

THe season record including regular season and Playoffs stands at 117-100 +1444. Best season I've had in a while. But I'm only 4-7 in the Playoffs. Maybe I'm not seeing things right in this year's Playoffs so take my opinion and toss it with the crumbs from your breakfast plate.

Kansas City +1 +103 (Philly)

Over the years I've been very successful using one metric to define the winner (and cover) of the Big Game. It is turnover margin for the past 6 games. This year I had to edit it because Jalen Hurts missed Weeks 16 and 17 so I left those games out and used the last 6 games he played in for the Philly qualifiers.

KCy 10-4
Philly 5-4

That's a net +6 for Kansas City. And net +1 for Philly, giving the Chiefs a +5 margin.

That's it. Simple but powerful stat.

Good luck guys. It's been fun sharing another season with my NFL brothers. Can't wait for the draft already.

[rolltide]

GL, on KC myself

I saw an interesting note on Mahomes and turnovers. He threw 2 each in b2b super bowls and then 2 in the Cincy AFC title game last year so in 3 straight seasons he's thrown multiple INT in his final game. I don't think he can do that again today and win. one INT can be overcome but 2+ would be a toughie

And Hurts can turn it over too. in his 15 reg season games he fumbled 10x and was picked 6x

Chiefs and Philly were also 1-2 in sacks which can certainly lead to forced fumbles. Turnovers will be a big talking point tonight

[Michelangelo]

Gonna add a study I did way back for the 2012 SB between the Pats and NYG. It's a detailed study. I spent many hours on this stuff back then. Can't now. But the turnover principle remains despite a lot of changes to the game since then.

//

• Feb 5, 2012

4-0 WC
2-1 Div
0-2 CC

right downhill

///

You guys know that I've focused on turnovers to direct me to this year's winners. Sticking with that theme but the info ain't gonna be easy to do any predicting from.

I went back and looked at all the Playoff games back to and including '94. So anything I quote going forward here will have come from thatr timeframe.

Let's start with this number to show you how important turnovers will be to the outcome of this game.

Since '94 the winner of the Super Bowl was 13-1-3 to win the turnover battle in that game. The only exception was in '05 when the Steelers committed 2 turnovers to the Seahawks 1 and still won the game, 21-10. In three games the turnovers were split.

Here's the breakdown by round:

48-10-14 WC to advance
49-15-8 Div to advance
26-4-4 CC to advance
13-1-3 SB winner to win the turnover battle

So now that we see that the team who wins the turnover battle is 13-1 to win the Super Bowl we've gotta look at these two teams outa that lens.

As teams morph as the season progresses, I have decided to only use te second half of the season to look at turnover ratios.

20-3 That's the Patriot turnover ratio for the second half of the season excluding Playoffs.

13-13 That's the Giant's turnover ratio for the second half of the season excluding Playoffs.

But here's where things get tricky.

6-1 That's the Giant turnover ratio in the Playoffs.

2-5 That's the Patriot turnover ratio in the Playoffs. Yes. Negative. They have lost the turnover battle in both their Playoff games this year and yet they buck the odds and continue to advance.

So the question is will the Pats get back to their late regular season form and/or will the Giants get back to
their late season form or will they continue
their post season tendencies which have been very different?

Here are the Pre SB Playoff ratios of all SB participants back to '94 and the SB result.

2011 // NEn ? NYG ? // NEn 2-5; NYG 6-1 (Nyg WC) (net NYG +8)
2010 // GBy 31 Pit 25 // GBy 8-5; Pit 4-4 (net GBy +3) // Cover GBy -2'
2009 // NOr 31 Ind 17 // NOr 7-1; Ind 5-2 (net NOr +4) // Cover NOr +4'
2008 // Pit 27 Azo 23 // Pit 6-1; Azo 12-3 (Azo WC) (net Azo +4) // Cover AZo +7
2007 // NYG 17 NEn 14 // NYG 6-1; NEn 4-3 (NYG WC) (net NYG +4) // Cover NYG +12'
2006 // Ind 29 Chi 17 // Ind 8-6; Chi 5-2 (Ind WC) (net Chi +1) // Cover Indy -7
2005 // Pit 21 Sea 10 // Pit 6-2 ; Sea 5-3 (Pit WC) (net Pit +2) // Cover Pit -4
2004 // NEn 24 Phi 21 // NEn 7-0; Phi 3-1 (net NEn +5) // Cover Phi +7
2003 // NEn 32 Car 29 // NEn 6-3; Car 9-1 (Car WC) (net Car +5) // Cover Car +7
2002 // TBy 48 Oak 21 // TBy 8-3; Oak 6-2 (net TBy +1) // Cover TBy +4
2001 // NEn 20 StL 17 // NEn 4-1; St L 10-3 (net StL +4) // Cover NEn +14
2000 // Bal 34 NYG 7 // Bal 7-2; NYG 8-5 (Bal WC) (net Bal +2) // Cover Bal -3
1999 // St L 23 Ten 16 // St L 5-6; 8-7 (Ten WC) (net Ten +2) // Cover Push
1998 // Den 34 Atl 19 // DEn 9-0; Atl 5-3 (net Den +7) // Cover Denver -7'
1997 // Den 31 GBy 24 // Den 6-6; GBy 4-3 (Den WC) (net GBy +1) // Cover DEn +11'
1996 // GBy 35 NEn 21 // GBy 8-3; NEn 6-4 (net GBy +3) // Cover Push
1995 // Dal 27 Pit 17 // Dal 3-1; Pit 4-3 (net Dal +1) // Cover Pit +13'
1994 // SFo 49 SDo 26 // SFo 7-2; SDo 1-4 (net SFo +8) // Cover SFo -18

///

Someone(s) look through those numbers and tell us what you find that has pointing value. I need a break. Been doin' this stuff for hours and days.

///

And if that isn't bad enough, here's some more stuff I pulled outa those isolations (all supporting the G men. Damn)

I get 10-5-2 ATS for the better ratio.

I also get 6-1 ATS if the better ratioed team was a SB dog. (The one loss was Chi in '06 when they had only a +1 plurality.

I also notice that the only team to have a + ratio as high as the Giants today was San Fran in '94 who were 18 point favs over SDo and won and covered 49-26.

Not lookin' good for my Patsies. Damn. May have to sit back and watch this baby without action.

///

To refresh your memory:

Pats -3' (NY Giants)
Final: NY Giants 21 New England 17

[bleeker]

playoffs =1 and conference!=o:conference and D and Sum(TOM@team,N=6) <=-5 and 57>=total >=45

super bowl
dog
cumulative TOM last 6 games <=-5
total range 45.5/56.5 (dead center @ 51)

7-1 (11.94)

https://killersports.com/nfl/query?o...+S+D+Q+L+%21++


kc

[Riderx]

BOL, Jim...

[Chamblin]

[captjoe388]

[BT]

Damn Jim. Impressive work. On the other side but good luck bud!

[Riderx]