This Week's confidence pick Guesses (NFL Week 12)

Last week, in a misguided "Nate Silver moment," I tried to predict the week in the NFL.

I said that of 6 "BIG (6 pt favorite or more) spread teams", one would lose.  One did.  The Texans.  We now know that the Texans are...oh, no...(more later).

I said that of the 9 FG or less favorites, at least two would lose (three did).

I said the average confidence pick score would be 83.  It was 82.75 in my group.

I said the high score would be 113.  Someone in my group only missed one game and had a 126.  Can't predict someone being crazy good.

So, where's that put us this week?

By my research (Yahoo NFL odds), there are only 3 BIG games: NOLA-ATL, Jax-Hou, TB-Det.  As the Saints are on the road, road BIGs are pretty automatic.  Make that your 16 (you heard it here).

Houston?  Remember -- only 73% of home BIGs win.  Just sayin'.

On the FG end, this week there are only 6 of those (compared to 9 last week, a season high).  Of those, 5 of those are home (StL, CLE, Oak, AZ, NYG), and one on the road (DEN).  Home FGs only win 71% of the time.  Pick one or two of them to lose.  Denver is a 50-50 shot to win, as road FGs win only 54% of the time.

Prediction on points?  With fewer FGs (three road FGs all lost last week), AND fewer BIGs, it looks like a good week should be better than last week -- an average around 90 points.

I can't predict someone will go 14 for 15 (or this week 13 for 14), but given the trend lines, 120 isn't out of the question this week -- losing one BIG game (assuming they are 16, 15, 14), or one of the 3+ to 5+ games (SD@KC, CAR@MIA, NYJ@BAL, SF@WAS) and an FG, probably the Denver game.

That's what notNateSilver has this week.  GL.

538.com Week 11 Confidence Number

If Nate Silver can predict (and accurately) the number of electoral votes...

Dbrolaw (whose blog this isn't) and I often speculate on whether this will be a good week or a bad week based on how tough we think the games are to pick any given week.

The magic number this week is 113 (out of 135).

Why?

Get this JG: it's an algorithm.

If you combine the winning number each week for our confidence group, and do an algorithm with the number of spread favorites, and it gives you a trend line; this week's mix of BIG home & road favorites (4 and 1) and FG home & road favorites (3 and 2) & you end up with 1 high number loser (14?) and two low number losers (5 and 3?).

The average this week should be 84.  I hope my score is closer to 113 than 84.

Go Broncs.

Go Colts?

Confidence Picks Week 11 of NFL -- 538.com-ish

This blog is to help enlighten those doing confidence picks (NFL) this week (and beyond?).  If you don't understand what "confidence picks for NFL" are, read no farther.

As I pondered this week's picks, I thought I was doing some Nate Silver numerical analysis and thought I'd share.

First, notable in Week 11 of the NFL is that 9 games (Colts-Titans, Skins-Eagles, Ravens-Bears, Jets-Bills, Lions-Steelers, Falcons-Bucs, Chargers-Dolphins, 49ers-Saints, Pats-Panthers) have 3 point spreads or less (we'll call them FG games).  Likewise, 6 games have 6 point or more spreads (we'll call them BIG favorites).  

So, I wondered: are the FG games harder to pick (for confidence) than the BIG games?

You understand, right?  Those 6 games should be 16-15-14-13-12-11, right?

And the other nine 10 through 2, right?

Ah...

Here's this season's data:

In 56 BIG games, the favorites have only won 44 times, or 75%.  In 52 FG games, the favorites have won 31 times, or 60%.

I found this rather shocking.

First, I assumed that being a BIG favorite would be a much better bet to win.  (JG axiom: in confidence, the first thing is to pick the games right; in the history of my confidence pick group, NO ONE has ever picked every game in a week right.  The weighting is secondary -- pick right!)

Second, I thought there'd be a bigger differential between BIG favorites and FG favorites.

Third, EVERY week, one BIG favorite has lost.

What's that mean this week?  One of those 6 will lose.

No, I can't tell you which one.

But, the corollary is this: the other 9 will run more true to form than you would think.

And, to go a step farther, (assuming you followed this) -- home FG favorites win 64% of the time.  Home BIG favs only win 73% of the time.

Better is that BIG road favs win 84% of the time (this makes sense as they are almost a touchdown, or more, favorites over the standard 3-pt bias for home field).  As the Cardinals are the only team in this category, I'm feeling like they should be my 16 this week.

As road FG favs only win 54% of the time (a bit surprising as being the favorite over the 3-pt bias should mean more advantage), it moves the Chargers, Falcons, and Lions into the lower end of the spectrum.

That's what I've got.

I need a big week.  Good luck to you, too.

It's Not *About Time*

Opening premise:  I love Richard Curtis films.  Four Weddings & A Funeral  -- seen like ten times.  Love Hugh Grant in it (of course).  Notting Hill -- seen like twenty times. Love Hugh Grant.  Love his roommate.  Love Hugh's sister.  Love Actually -- seen it like thirty times (the family thinks it's a Christmas picture).  Not sure it's nearly as good as the other two, but there you have it.

About Time is Curtis's next effort.

It's a disappointment.

First, it's charming, like the others.  But it's not really funny.

Where to start?  The premise?  Time travel?  Okay, limited time travel.   Yes, it could be funny.  Isn't.

Curtis is famous for funny scenes and lines -- the best man speech in Four Weddings, the Horse & Hound line in Notting Hill, the Bill Nighy scenes in Love -- but there's no such thing here.  Yes, Curtis tries to resurrect the best man speech problem, but Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) can go back in time, so...well, it's never funny.  Nighy (Tim's father here) gives a sappy little speech that might embarrass Hugh Grant.

Then there's the chemistry.  It is called "acting," so I've never quite believed in chemistry.

But Gleeson and Rachel McAdams's Mary just are not believable.  She's, of course, adorable.  But you never get that "meant to be" thing you get with Grant and Andie McDowell, or Grant and Julie Roberts, or Grant and Martine McCutcheon.  Maybe it's the fact it's not Grant.

I love McAdams.  But the promos say "McAdams best work since The Notebook."  What does that even mean?  She's been in some decent movies, but she's not a prospect for Golden Globes or Academy Award, -- yet.

She's cute here.  She's charming.  But if this is McAdams's best work...well, we can hope there's a lot more upside.

So, yes, About Time is a disappointment.  Maybe it's trying to be too deep -- yes, there's an implicit message.

Maybe it's just wasn't time for Curtis's next movie.

On Top in College Picks (for Now)

After the third week of college football picking, I wrote a blog on how to be last in your group while trying (blog).

Now, I'm going to tell you I'm in first place.  By four picks, which, in a drop a week league, is a lot.  I could screw it up, but I don't think it'd be easy to do so.

I wish I knew how I've done it.  I won this week with 11 out of 18.  You say "that's not good," but when you are picking against the spread and not picking which games -- there'd be a number of them I'd duck as too tough -- anything over .500 is good.  We've agreed among ourselves that picking against  the spread is almost a coin toss.

Here's what I know about this season: Alabama and Florida State have separated themselves.  If they don't end up in the national championship game, I'd be stunned.  Alabama has Auburn in the Iron Bowl, which is the toughest test either faces.

I admit I'd love to see Baylor or Ohio State in the championship game, just to mix it up some.  But Ohio State hasn't played anyone and won't -- I heard commentators last night saying they had to hope Michigan State won out so they played someone good in the Big Ten championship game.  Frankly, I want to see the line on that game; if Sparty is getting more than a field goal, I will probably take them.  Not exactly a big time contender.

Baylor?  They score a lot.  This week's game with Ok State may be in the 100s for total points -- 52-49?  If the Bears win that, well, some claim Texas might give them a game, but I doubt it.  I'd give two touchdowns at this point.  If they win out, they have a chance, but their non-conference season isn't much & the Big 12 isn't loaded with Top 25 teams -- it's Oklahoma, Ok State & Baylor.  If Texas gets there by the Baylor game, it's a joke.

College football is great.  The Notre Dame-Pitt game epitomizes why.  Pitt hadn't played a really good game all year, including a loss to Navy just last week, and the opening game shellacking by Fl State.  Notre Dame was hanging, with one loss, to hopes of a BCS.

Then, it's a tough game, ND makes a mistake, Pitt turns it into two touchdowns and momentum, and you have an upset.

On the other hand, you have a great game like Alabama-LSU.  And Alabama grinds to a two TD lead, but gives up the 80+ yard kickoff return, and...

LSU doesn't convert.  Mo doesn't really shift, and the Tide rolls to the other end and seals the game, more.

Fun to watch.  Unexpected (didn't we all think LSU would be within a score late?).

So, we'll keep watching.  And picking.  But it's Tide v. the Seminole chop at this point for the title.

It's a Rush -- see it!

I finally saw Ron Howard's Rush.  It is my favorite movie of the year (admittedly, it may not be "the best").

Disclosure: in 1976, when the movie's central action takes place, I was big into cars, had a subscription to Road & Track (this was before every sports event was televised somewhere live), and I followed Grand Prix racing as best I could from the American Midwest.  The Hunt-Lauda rivalry that is the movie I followed like some followed Ali & Frazier.

Sports movies are often pretty good, given that sports provides that story arc with the tension needed to drive a good story.  With car racing, you add the visual element -- it doesn't take a lot of special effects to have you into the event (we all drive, but none of us THAT fast).

Then you add two complementary characters like James Hunt, the brash, playboy Brit, and Niki Lauda, the reclusive, mechanical Austrian, and you've got a great mix.

Add Lauda's tragic accident and the great talent the two possessed, and you've got quite a film.

You are caught up in their rivalry; you are caught up in Lauda's recovery; you root for Hunt's success, because he's so forthright & charming (does he really say to the press that he's pulled quite something being able to divorce without paying a thing because his wife has taken up with Richard Burton?  does he really beat in a reporter's face after a heartless question about Lauda's marriage and command, "ask your wife what she thinks of your face now"?)...and you don't know who should win.

Howard does an excellent job of portraying them both, with screenwriter Peter Morgan's script using voice-over narration from them both to understand them both and their mild animosity for each other.

The racing shots are great.

Thor (Chris Helmsforth) is good as Hunt;  Daniel Bruhl is excellent as the up-tight Lauda.

It's taut, exciting, and thrilling.  See it.  It may not win an Academy Award nomination (it's probably not high-brow enough), but it's quality film-making: an intense story, well acted, written, and beautifully shot.

Movie Reviews: Gravity says Enough Said

I know the title sucks, but when you got nothing, you force the connection.

It's been awhile, but I've recently seen two movies worth recommending.  So, here it is.

First in order of my seeing it, as well as order of release, was Enough Said.  I knew it'd be a "meet cute" RomCom, with "adult"...errr..."mature" actors, and it was.

The surprise is that it's actually pretty funny; I mean, how can you do better with low humor than a reference to James Gandolfini's penis hanging out?

Okay, get this (spoiler alert, I'm about to ruin most of the movie's setup, skip this paragraph if you don't want to know): Gandolfini & Elaine...err...Julie Louis XIVth...meet at a party.  Right.  Turns out his ex is there.  Who knew?  Well, the thing is, it's an important plot device that Louis...err...Elaine, doesn't.  They end up dating.  Amazingly (who could have seen it coming?), Elaine...errr...Julie fouls up the relationship by complicating it by trying to keep a relationship with both of them.  But this is a grown up film.  They don't have some denouement to get them back together.  But there comes a final scene where they admit to having driven by each other's houses since the break up.

Cute. Well done.  Elaine is...errr...Elaine (has she ever played anyone different?) and Gandolfini is pretty good as a modest, divorcee -- you wonder why he's divorced -- who doesn't have Brad Pitt's looks or body, but seems just a decent enough guy.  No, not a gangster.  No wonder he died -- got too far out of type.

Gravity is completely different.  If you haven't heard, it's Sandra Bullock's movie.  George Clooney is in it, but those of you who want to see a lot of him, well, he's in a space suit the whole time.  Too bad.  Sandra isn't.

I'm not sure Bullock is any better in this movie than Elaine is in Enough Said.

But the movie is A LOT better.

You do know they get stuck in space? (is that a spoiler? whoops! alert)

You are not sure they are going to make it.  You are not sure Bullock is going to make it (like the movie, Clooney may reappear in a moment).  Bullock is the outsider, the scientist who has brought her experiment into space (you can ponder whether you buy Bullock as a one-of-a-kind inventor-scientist if you dare) & who doesn't know how to fly a capsule.  This makes for some of the suspense as she tries to not only figure out how to do the mechanical thing, but, of course, nothing done in space these days is American, so she has to cope, too, with the language barrier.

Bullock has a very bad day.  If it could go wrong, it does.  She's bright, athletic &...well, that's par for the course -- would you send a klutzy idiot into space (sort of rhetorical) -- so has a chance.  But there seems to be everything against her.

Of course, it's space.  Oxygen is in short supply.  So, if you missed this, is gravity, which makes a a whole series of things weird and different -- you wonder how they did the shots.  Cuarzon is masterful with the cameras, with the story, with the CGI.

Is she going to make it?  Where's George?  Will you hear from Earth?

It's tense, taut, visually appealing, and Bullock, if not exactly exhibiting the Ms Einstein persona, is appealing.  You care if she survives.  You root for her.  When there are complications (gee, weren't there some of those in the other movie, too!?!?!?), you want her to resolve them.

It's worth seeing.

They both are.  For different things.  But they are both well done.  But my recommendation is see Gravity first.