Tuesday, February 13th, 2007
If you love football and gambling in the stock market, then do I have the place for you. Keith Jacks Gamble analyzed how the gambling odds were affected by each play in the Super Bowl as he explains:
My analysis uses a market-based measure of the probability impact of each play, which builds in how a play affected the market’s expectation of future plays. For example, Protrade’s analysis estimates that Hester’s TD return (their 2nd highest impact play) gave the Bears a 70% chance of winning (20% increase), whereas my analysis estimates that the Bears had a 42.75% chance of winning (10.25% increase, just out of my top 5) following the TD.
If you watched the game, it will come as no surprise that the biggest swings in the odds of winning came on negative offensive plays (e.g. interception) rather than positive ones (e.g. touchdowns).
The odds that of the Colts winning only increased by 10.5% when Peyton threw a touchdown, and only 5.75% when Rex Grossman found the end zone. Apparently not losing the game was more important: Rex throwing an interception decreased the odds of a Chicago win by 22.75% versus Peyton’s 5.75%.
There is a difference in the quality of interceptions thrown by each of the quarterbacks. Peyton might throw a few picks, but in general they weren’t as dangerous or they weren’t at key times in the game. In contrast, when Rex threw an interception, it might culimanate in a touchdown dance by the defense. Indeed it was that exact play by Hester that sealed the fate of the Bears. This is something that Bears fans suspected all season: Rex might throw throw some valuable touchdowns, but his interceptions hurt the team more.
Statastico supports the Minnesota Vikings and Stephen Colbert, so I’m hopeful that these godless killing machines will be hobbled by keeping Rex as their starting quarterback next season.