There might also just be a gap between those who have skin in the game (books and bettors, especially sharps) and those who don't. If you're a media pundit, you don't really *have* to be right, and you can afford to entertain fun narratives like Mahomes overcoming all. (And that might end up being true anyway. He consistently does what he needs to win.) But if you have money tied up in the outcome, suddenly you do have to dig into the weeds of the injuries and matchups, the DVOA and the EPA. And narrative just isn't a luxury for you anymore.
A lot of these pundits are picking the Chiefs because they picked against them in earlier rounds. Ryen Russillo for example said he like the Niners but won’t pick against the Chiefs again as he did the previous rounds. Classic gamblers fallacy, but I understand the reasoning.
I think skin in the game reflects confidence of the individual through your betting amounts while something like the ESPN survey you don't get this at all. ESPN just asked everyone to pick a side, is there a follow-up question for how confident the person is in the outcome? Maybe you can back that out by the score difference in their prediction but even that has issues.
Occam’s razor — the average media critter is kinda dumbish. Collectively, given the information they have access too—they underperform in predicting outcomes.
Notably, it’s not like Caesars had been eagerly poaching from this talent pool (unlike the quants it immediately started poaching after those types started showing their skill).
Now, people are good journalists for lots of reasons. Entertaining takes, skill at acquiring information, approachable writing etc… Analytical brilliance is generally not among them.
We should not be looking to them for any kind of wisdom.
2 points is barely an underdog. Might as well be a toss up.
I'm on the exact same wavelength as friend of the pod Freddie DeBoer: I'm tired of They Who Shall Not Be Named. No, not for political reasons. Just for "I'm tired of this overexposed celebrity" reasons.
Also, a Brock Purdy win would be a nice little LOL at people who like to give out draft grades before any player even takes a snap. So go Niners!
I am a Niners fan and will be pleasantly surprised if they win. They've been all over the place this playoffs and I could see them losing by 17 as much as I could see them winning by 10.
1) I wouldn't put much stock in "sharps" for a Super Bowl. Too many squares make too many big bets. One example: in 2002 a popular offshore book, Ace's Gold, saw early sharp bets on the Rams. They upped the line to Rams -14, when every other major offshore was -13.5 or below. They wanted "square" action. Problem was, the Super Bowl brought in too much action. AG's action was almost all Pats. AG lost so much they went under and a lot of their customers got stiffed
2) Niners are from the Bay Area, and there's way too much money there. It's like when the Lakers make the Finals. Books have to "favor" the Lakers more than they would based on the actual matchup, because otherwise they'll get swamped with homer bets. (And as you've written, homers are the most knowingest people in sports)
I agree with the second point but not the first. I don't think even star non-QBs move the line more than a point. To me, it’s pretty simple. Of the 4 main units in this game, the most dominant by a significant margin is the niners offense, but the public and pundits do not seem to treat them that way, probably because of Purdy. They have maintained this dominance in the playoffs. While the chiefs are a step up on defense, they’re not the ravens and the running game edge is pretty massive, as you point out. Sharps don’t care about the “never bet against Mahomes” axiom, which seems to be the primary rationale for going with the chiefs.
One other reason why the Chiefs might be the betting underdog:
This has been a huge year for sports gambling and a huge year for new (female) fan interest in the NFL. The public winning big on the Chiefs might hurt the books for a week, but it may be worth it in the longterm if it captures a significant new segment of fans and betters.
I’m sure there’s analysis about which matchup advantages are more accurate predictors of outcomes. My initial guess would be Special Teams advantage is least impactful < Running Game < Secondary play < Line Play < Quarterback Play.
> The books have considerations beyond simply projecting likelihood
Ok, and _so do all the other opinionators cited here_. This fact doesn't support your thesis as well as you think.
The reason that betting markets are looked to for predicting outcomes is not because they are purely objective projectors of outcomes, but because, on average, they do a better job than other measures. You don't have to be perfect just to do better.
Shanahan manufactured 20 points in 2019 with Jimmy G. He can probably get the O to 24 with Purdy and CMC. You know he's not taking any risks end of half.
Question is if they can keep Mahomes under 24. History says no
There might also just be a gap between those who have skin in the game (books and bettors, especially sharps) and those who don't. If you're a media pundit, you don't really *have* to be right, and you can afford to entertain fun narratives like Mahomes overcoming all. (And that might end up being true anyway. He consistently does what he needs to win.) But if you have money tied up in the outcome, suddenly you do have to dig into the weeds of the injuries and matchups, the DVOA and the EPA. And narrative just isn't a luxury for you anymore.
A lot of these pundits are picking the Chiefs because they picked against them in earlier rounds. Ryen Russillo for example said he like the Niners but won’t pick against the Chiefs again as he did the previous rounds. Classic gamblers fallacy, but I understand the reasoning.
I think skin in the game reflects confidence of the individual through your betting amounts while something like the ESPN survey you don't get this at all. ESPN just asked everyone to pick a side, is there a follow-up question for how confident the person is in the outcome? Maybe you can back that out by the score difference in their prediction but even that has issues.
America's foremost NFL writer breaking down various defensive schemes and coverages. Well worth the 9 clams a month
Occam’s razor — the average media critter is kinda dumbish. Collectively, given the information they have access too—they underperform in predicting outcomes.
Notably, it’s not like Caesars had been eagerly poaching from this talent pool (unlike the quants it immediately started poaching after those types started showing their skill).
Now, people are good journalists for lots of reasons. Entertaining takes, skill at acquiring information, approachable writing etc… Analytical brilliance is generally not among them.
We should not be looking to them for any kind of wisdom.
2 points is barely an underdog. Might as well be a toss up.
I'm on the exact same wavelength as friend of the pod Freddie DeBoer: I'm tired of They Who Shall Not Be Named. No, not for political reasons. Just for "I'm tired of this overexposed celebrity" reasons.
Also, a Brock Purdy win would be a nice little LOL at people who like to give out draft grades before any player even takes a snap. So go Niners!
I am a Niners fan and will be pleasantly surprised if they win. They've been all over the place this playoffs and I could see them losing by 17 as much as I could see them winning by 10.
KC had a very weird season on offense, their three most recent games (yes, small sample size) may indicate positive regression.
KC Regular Season Ranks:
2nd most drops in the NFL
8th highest rate of TO inside opp 30
10th most EPA lost on O due TO
4th most off penalties/gm
Mahomes is inevitable
The initial comment about the 2021 Super Bowl is incorrect. Chiefs were betting favorites (-3)
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/super-bowl-2021-spread-odds-chiefs-remain-slight-favorites-over-the-buccaneers-in-super-bowl-lv/
Good one Ethan. Two notes:
1) I wouldn't put much stock in "sharps" for a Super Bowl. Too many squares make too many big bets. One example: in 2002 a popular offshore book, Ace's Gold, saw early sharp bets on the Rams. They upped the line to Rams -14, when every other major offshore was -13.5 or below. They wanted "square" action. Problem was, the Super Bowl brought in too much action. AG's action was almost all Pats. AG lost so much they went under and a lot of their customers got stiffed
2) Niners are from the Bay Area, and there's way too much money there. It's like when the Lakers make the Finals. Books have to "favor" the Lakers more than they would based on the actual matchup, because otherwise they'll get swamped with homer bets. (And as you've written, homers are the most knowingest people in sports)
Ethan went from Oracle's bowels to Cover 0 talk, such growth!
Phil Simms just said “I’m going to take the underdog, even though they are favored. I’m taking the Chiefs.”
I agree with the second point but not the first. I don't think even star non-QBs move the line more than a point. To me, it’s pretty simple. Of the 4 main units in this game, the most dominant by a significant margin is the niners offense, but the public and pundits do not seem to treat them that way, probably because of Purdy. They have maintained this dominance in the playoffs. While the chiefs are a step up on defense, they’re not the ravens and the running game edge is pretty massive, as you point out. Sharps don’t care about the “never bet against Mahomes” axiom, which seems to be the primary rationale for going with the chiefs.
One other reason why the Chiefs might be the betting underdog:
This has been a huge year for sports gambling and a huge year for new (female) fan interest in the NFL. The public winning big on the Chiefs might hurt the books for a week, but it may be worth it in the longterm if it captures a significant new segment of fans and betters.
I’m sure there’s analysis about which matchup advantages are more accurate predictors of outcomes. My initial guess would be Special Teams advantage is least impactful < Running Game < Secondary play < Line Play < Quarterback Play.
> The books have considerations beyond simply projecting likelihood
Ok, and _so do all the other opinionators cited here_. This fact doesn't support your thesis as well as you think.
The reason that betting markets are looked to for predicting outcomes is not because they are purely objective projectors of outcomes, but because, on average, they do a better job than other measures. You don't have to be perfect just to do better.
I should say "the preceding point" rather than "your thesis" here, to be fair.
Shanahan manufactured 20 points in 2019 with Jimmy G. He can probably get the O to 24 with Purdy and CMC. You know he's not taking any risks end of half.
Question is if they can keep Mahomes under 24. History says no