Best ATS Record winning percentage over 82 game season

bigboydan · 02-08-08, 01:19 PM

Not sure of what the numbers are offhand sir, however it's gotta be the 1996 Chicago Bulls. The one thing I remember about that team is that they seemed to cover every night.

LT Profits · 02-08-08, 02:03 PM

No Dan, they finished under .500 ATS despite their 69-13 record. Something like 39-42-1.

curious · 02-08-08, 03:42 PM

I would guess that whoever has that record they are either below .500 or slightly above .500 in straight up record.

diogee · 02-08-08, 03:43 PM

I would have to agree with curious since they usually have smaller spreads to cover each day.

LT Profits · 02-08-08, 05:16 PM

As far as I could tell, the distinction belongs to the 1994-95 Utah Jazz, who went an amazing 54-26-2, 67.5% ATS during the regular season. I say amazing because that team was 60-22 SU, so it is not as if they flew under the radar.

Naturally, that team lost in the first round of the playoffs three games to two to the Houston Rockets, going 1-4 ATS in the series to still finish at a sparkling 55-30-2, 64.7% ATS for the entire year.

rake922 · 02-08-08, 05:21 PM

Celtics and Hornets are at 64% ATS this year

bigboydan · 02-08-08, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

No Dan, they finished under .500 ATS despite their 69-13 record. Something like 39-42-1.

That was their 72-10 year I believe LT. So naturally I assumed they had the best ATS record. However, what I do remember is I always got drilled every time I had the other team they were playing.

I would have never thought it was the Jazz though, and yes I did realize the %'s of the teams you mentioned Rake. Although, I don't feel they will keep up that pace for the entire season.

LT Profits · 02-08-08, 07:03 PM

Oh, you mean 1995-96 Bulls. Yes they were good but not as good as 1994 Jazz. That Bulls team was 49-31-2, 61.3%.

brock · 02-08-08, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by rake922

Celtics and Hornets are at 64% ATS this year

wonder what they would be over the last 10 games see if the books made adjustments

Data · 02-08-08, 07:32 PM

What do you make out of this?

LT Profits · 02-08-08, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Data

What do you make out of this?

That it may be good to fade the Celts and Hornets the rest of the way?

Data · 02-08-08, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

That it may be good to fade the Celts and Hornets the rest of the way?

I think not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

LT Profits · 02-08-08, 11:51 PM

Data,

No that only goes for 50/50 propositions that are not reliant on past events. In this case, the oddsmakers will adjust the lines on Celts and Hornets to the point where they will lose their value (or at least do their best to do so). THAT is why it is so hard for any team in any sport to maintain a 64% success rate ATS.

turnip · 02-08-08, 11:55 PM

What the Celtics' and Hornets' ATS records say is that they were underrated preseason.

In this case, the oddsmakers will adjust the lines on Celts and Hornets to the point where they will lose their value (or at least do their best to do so). THAT is why it is so hard for any team in any sport to maintain a 64% success rate ATS.

I think the oddsmakers are trying their best to adjust the lines on these teams to make their lines 50/50 propositions. In this case, it would still be difficult for the teams to maintain 64%. If they went .500 ATS in their remaining games, their ATS% would dip below 60%.

LT Profits · 02-09-08, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by turnip

What the Celtics' and Hornets' ATS records say is that they were underrated preseason.

I think the oddsmakers are trying their best to adjust the lines on these teams to make their lines 50/50 propositions. In this case, it would still be difficult for the teams to maintain 64%. If they went .500 ATS in their remaining games, their ATS% would dip below 60%.

Exactly.

Data · 02-09-08, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by LT Profits

Exactly.

LT Profits,

Turnip just explained why it does not make sense to fade those teams, so you agreeing with him is inconsistent with your views on the matter.

Using ATS records (O/U records as well) is rather fascinating subject that deserve to be discussed thoroughly.

My take on this is that it can be of any use only if some other outside conditions exist. For example, if the linesmakers were motivated in any way to produce the lines that make as many teams as possible finishing season with ATS records as close as possible to 50/50 then fading would make sense. Is that their goal? I doubt but this is not impossible scenario.

If we do not make such farfetched assumptions then we should think that the linesmakers make the lines in a way that taking either side would be 50/50 proposition. The ATS records play no role here.

LT Profits · 02-09-08, 01:09 AM

Actually, I was agreeing that neither team will stay at the level they are at now, and he is accurate that if the oddsmakers do their jobs well, both teams will dip below 60% by year's end.

Now you are correct that I misspoke when I said fade those teams the rest of the year, as 50/50 is a loser whether you fade or follow. There are no short-cuts to gambling, and you can't blindly bet on or against teams without doing any handicapping.

That said, it may be easier in the immediate future to find value playing against those two teams while they are public darlings.

rake922 · 03-25-08, 05:44 PM

Magic are at 64% now

Arnold · 03-25-08, 06:07 PM

I think ATS records indicate whether a team is overrated or underrated. A team with a winning ATS record is underrated and plays above general expectations. Whether or not it is good to fade or follow Celtics & Hornets for the rest of the season will depend whether or not they will play above or below expectations.