In this article I will discuss some of the more profitable ATS
trends some find useful as part of their handicapping exercise. I particularly do not hold a lot of value in
using these trends, but no question they can add value as a small piece of the
handicapping puzzle – in particular, looking for team’s that have not had a lot
of personnel turnover, especially focusing on coaching staff’s and QB’s. Overall, I consider 4 years to be the
absolute max trends such as this do stay somewhat relevant, but that estimation
is flexible depending on many factors.
Legend: home favorites (HF), home underdogs (HD), road favorites
(RF), road underdogs (RD)
|
|
|
4 YEARS :
''08-'11
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
ATS
|
|
|
ATS
|
|
|
TEAM
|
|
TREND
|
W/L
|
WIN %
|
NOTES
|
|
W/L
|
WIN %
|
NOTES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NE
|
*
|
RD
|
6-2
|
75%
|
|
|
1-0
|
100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYJ
|
*
|
HF
|
11-16
|
41%
|
|
|
2-3
|
40%
|
|
|
NYJ
|
*
|
HD
|
4-1
|
80%
|
W 4 of 5 SU
|
|
1-2
|
33%
|
W 0 of 3 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIT
|
*
|
RF
|
8-12
|
40%
|
|
|
1-4
|
20%
|
|
|
PIT
|
*
|
HD
|
2-0
|
100%
|
W 2 of 2 SU
|
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
PIT
|
*
|
RD
|
7-4
|
64%
|
|
|
2-1
|
67%
|
W 2 of 3 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BAL
|
*
|
HF
|
17-10
|
63%
|
W 25 of 27 SU
|
|
2-4
|
33%
|
W 5 of 6 SU
|
|
BAL
|
*
|
RD
|
10-7
|
59%
|
|
|
1-3
|
25%
|
W 0 of 4 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYG
|
*
|
HF
|
12-16
|
43%
|
|
|
4-4
|
50%
|
W 6 of 8 SU
|
|
NYG
|
*
|
Road
|
18-13
|
58%
|
|
|
4-4
|
50%
|
W 3 of 8 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAL
|
*
|
HF
|
12-17
|
41%
|
|
|
0-6
|
0%
|
W 3 of 6 SU
|
|
DAL
|
*
|
RF
|
6-10
|
38%
|
|
|
2-1
|
67%
|
W 2 of 3 SU
|
|
DAL
|
*
|
Favorite
|
18-27
|
40%
|
|
|
2-7
|
22%
|
W 5 of 9 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GB
|
*
|
HF
|
17-11
|
61%
|
|
|
5-3
|
63%
|
W 7 of 8 SU
|
|
GB
|
*
|
RF
|
12-9
|
57%
|
|
|
3-3
|
50%
|
|
|
GB
|
*
|
Favorite
|
29-20
|
59%
|
|
|
8-6
|
57%
|
|
|
GB
|
*
|
HD
|
3-0
|
100%
|
|
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
GB
|
*
|
RD
|
7-5
|
58%
|
|
|
1-1
|
50%
|
|
|
GB
|
*
|
Underdog
|
10-5
|
67%
|
|
|
1-1
|
50%
|
|
|
GB
|
*
|
Road
|
19-14
|
58%
|
|
|
4-4
|
50%
|
|
|
GB
|
*
|
Home
|
20-11
|
65%
|
|
|
5-3
|
63%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATL
|
*
|
HF
|
19-8
|
70%
|
|
|
4-4
|
50%
|
W 7 of 8 SU
|
|
ATL
|
*
|
RF
|
9-5
|
64%
|
|
|
3-2
|
60%
|
W 4 of 5 SU
|
|
ATL
|
*
|
Favorite
|
28-13
|
68%
|
|
|
7-6
|
54%
|
W 11 of 13 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SD
|
*
|
RF
|
6-15
|
29%
|
|
|
1-1
|
50%
|
|
|
SD
|
*
|
RD
|
8-3
|
73%
|
W 6 of 11 SU
|
|
4-2
|
67%
|
W 3 of 6 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHI
|
*
|
RD
|
6-3
|
67%
|
W 5 of 9 SU
|
|
3-3
|
50%
|
W 1 of 6 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHI
|
|
RF
|
5-2
|
71%
|
|
|
3-2
|
60%
|
W 4 of 5 SU
|
|
CHI
|
|
RD
|
8-14
|
36%
|
|
|
1-2
|
33%
|
W 1 of 3 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO
|
*
|
HF
|
19-9
|
68%
|
W 24 of 28 SU
|
|
2-3
|
40%
|
W 2 of 5 SU
|
|
NO
|
*
|
Favorite
|
30-18
|
63%
|
|
|
4-4
|
50%
|
W 4 of 8 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIA
|
|
HF
|
7-12
|
37%
|
|
|
2-2
|
50%
|
|
|
MIA
|
|
HD
|
4-8
|
33%
|
|
|
2-1
|
67%
|
|
|
MIA
|
|
Home
|
11-20
|
35%
|
|
|
4-3
|
57%
|
|
|
MIA
|
|
RD
|
19-7
|
73%
|
W 13 of 26 SU
|
|
2-5
|
29%
|
W 2 of 7 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUF
|
|
HF
|
6-10
|
38%
|
|
|
4-2
|
67%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIN
|
|
HF
|
5-11
|
31%
|
|
|
2-3
|
40%
|
W 3 of 5 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CLE
|
|
HF
|
3-7
|
30%
|
|
|
1-1
|
50%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IND
|
|
RF
|
11-5
|
69%
|
|
|
2-0
|
100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JAC
|
|
HF
|
6-11
|
35%
|
|
|
0-1
|
0%
|
|
|
JAC
|
|
HD
|
6-9
|
40%
|
|
|
2-5
|
29%
|
W 1 of 7 SU
|
|
JAC
|
|
Home
|
12-20
|
38%
|
|
|
2-6
|
25%
|
|
|
JAC
|
|
RD
|
11-16
|
41%
|
|
|
5-3
|
63%
|
W 1 of 8 SU
|
|
JAC
|
|
Underdog
|
17-25
|
40%
|
|
|
7-8
|
47%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEN
|
|
HF
|
2-15
|
12%
|
|
|
5-2
|
71%
|
W 7 of 7 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KC
|
|
HF
|
3-10
|
23%
|
|
|
0-1
|
0%
|
|
|
KC
|
|
RF
|
1-2
|
33%
|
|
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
KC
|
|
Favorite
|
4-12
|
25%
|
|
|
0-1
|
0%
|
|
|
KC
|
|
RD
|
18-11
|
62%
|
|
|
2-6
|
25%
|
|
|
KC
|
|
HD
|
11-8
|
58%
|
|
|
3-4
|
43%
|
|
|
KC
|
|
Underdog
|
29-19
|
60%
|
|
|
5-10
|
33%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WAS
|
|
HF
|
2-8
|
20%
|
|
|
3-2
|
60%
|
W 3 of 5 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIN
|
|
RD
|
9-13
|
41%
|
|
|
3-3
|
50%
|
W 3 of 6 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TB
|
|
HD
|
2-12
|
14%
|
W 2 of 14 SU
|
|
1-1
|
50%
|
|
|
TB
|
|
RD
|
16-12
|
57%
|
|
|
6-1
|
86%
|
W 3 of 7 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAR
|
|
RF
|
5-0
|
100%
|
|
|
1-2
|
33%
|
W 1 of 3 SU
|
|
CAR
|
|
Favorite
|
17-9
|
65%
|
|
|
2-4
|
33%
|
W 1 of 3 SU
|
|
CAR
|
|
HD
|
3-7
|
30%
|
|
|
2-3
|
40%
|
W 2 of 5 SU
|
|
CAR
|
|
RD
|
10-17
|
37%
|
|
|
5-0
|
100%
|
W 3 of 5 SU
|
|
CAR
|
|
Underdog
|
13-24
|
35%
|
W 9 of 37 SU
|
|
7-3
|
70%
|
W 5 of 10 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SF
|
|
HF
|
15-6
|
71%
|
W 17 of 21 SU
|
|
3-5
|
38%
|
W 6 of 8 SU
|
|
SF
|
|
RD
|
12-8
|
60%
|
|
|
2-1
|
67%
|
W 2 of 3 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEA
|
|
RD
|
9-19
|
32%
|
|
|
3-1
|
75%
|
W 2 of 4 SU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STL
|
|
HD
|
11-15
|
42%
|
|
|
4-2
|
67%
|
W 4 of 6 SU
|
|
STL
|
|
RD
|
12-18
|
40%
|
|
|
7-1
|
88%
|
W 3 of 8 SU
|
|
STL
|
|
Underdog
|
23-33
|
41%
|
W 9 of 56 SU
|
|
11-3
|
79%
|
W 7 of 14 SU
|
*indicates teams I identified before last season where I
felt these ATS trends would be of the highest relevance.
Review &
Analysis of 2012 Regular Season results
This analysis once again proved to be profitable and spot on
for the most part, adding to our successful preview articles we published
before last season.
In the matrix above I have split the teams in three buckets:
- the
first bucket (NE, NYJ, PIT, BAL, NYG, DAL, GB, ATL) were teams I
identified where these ATS trends were reliable, and these teams did not
suffer any last second changes to their status before the 2012 regular
season began
- the
second bucket (SD, PHI, CHI, NO) consists of three teams I identified as
having reliable ATS trends going into the 2012 season, but they had either
a significant event occur last season or this past offseason which shifts
them down a notch from the first bucket teams
- the
third bucket is the remaining NFL teams and they all have not had enough
consistency in key areas of their franchise to make these ATS trends too
reliable when using them in a vacuum
When examining the first bucket teams, which are the teams
these trends hold the highest significance with, the results were extremely
favorable if you had strictly bet in the situations mentioned. Overall this group had 11 winning trends vs. 4
losing trends, a solid, profitable performance (when calculating the 11-4 mark
I have removed all trends where there were no instances in 2012 such as PIT as
a home underdog, and also removed all situations where a team went exactly .500
during the 2012 regular season in a specific trend – for example NYG went 4-4
as home favorites & in road games).
Of the 8 teams listed in the first bucket, NE & PIT & GB &
ATL all did not have a losing record in any one trend I identified, while the
NYG went .500 in both so they were a wash; on the flip side Super Bowl Champion
BAL posted a losing ATS record in both trends I identified for them, while NYJ
& DAL each posted one losing trend mark (both of which were just one game
under .500). In summary of the first
bucket teams we can see there are clear indicators of success or failure when
simply breaking their ATS records into four high level categories (HF, HD, RF,
RD) – which intuitively makes sense because these are some of the more stable,
successful franchises in the NFL and their performance in certain spots over
the years is more consistent than some may think.
Moving down to the second bucket teams, which is the last
bucket we would suggest using trends such as these, there was more success as
this group posted a mark of 3 winning trends vs. 1 losing trend. CHI posted a perfect 2-0 mark as they
performed well as a road favorite (a spot they have been solid in over 2008 to
2011 going 5-2 ATS), and they also performed subpar as a road underdog (a spot
they have been losing in over 2008 to 2011 going just 8-14 ATS); SD continued
playing well as a RD moving to 12-5 ATS over the last 5 full regular seasons;
and NO was the lone losing proposition in this bucket as they posted just a 2-3
mark as a HF, an area they typically excelled posting a 19-9 mark from 2008 to
2011. One key point in this grouping is
all these teams either suffered a change of status before last season started
(after I posted this article last summer), or over this most recent offseason:
- SD:
fired HC Norv Turner, new HC is former DEN OC Mike McCoy
- PHI:
fired HC Andy Reid, new HC is former Oregon HC Chip Kelly
- CHI:
fired HC Lovie Smith, new HC is former CFL HC & NFL OC Marc Trestman
- NO:
lost HC Sean Payton for the 2012 regular season due to suspension; he
returns in 2013
The third bucket, which includes the remaining 20 NFL teams
has not had enough consistency in key areas across the team and organization
for these types of trends to hold a lot of relevance. However, teams can slide up or down going
into any season – more on this when we post our 2013 ATS Trends article, which
will be coming out shortly.
Here we reviewed another preview article we posted heading
into the 2012 regular season, and once again we hit a HOME RUN by identifying
key & profitable ATS trends, properly grouping teams where they were
relevant, leading to more winnings for our followers. Of the 5 losing trends we identified from
teams in bucket’s 1&2, three were just one game below .500, and the other
pair were just two games below .500 – extremely close to being winners as well!
Check back next week when we continue our review of 2012
preview articles, and of course continue adding 2013 preview articles where we
identify key areas/metrics to focus on when it’s time to handicap the games for
this upcoming season.
COPYRIGHT: THE SPORTSBOSS, 2013
