NFL Playoffs, Round 3

A split last round, 3-1 picking winners, 1-3 against the spread, bringing this year to 6-2 and 4-4. Moving on:

Baltimore Ravens at New England Patriots, Patriots favored by 7. Some real questions about both teams. Can Flacco make the big plays to win on the road? Can the Patriots beat a team that had a winning record (0-2 so far), and can their defense put up a good performance against an above-average offense? I'm expecting a hard-hitting game, but that the Pats' TEs will dominate again, taking the day, and that the Ravens will hit a bunch of FGs, but not many TDs. Patriots 34, Ravens 26.

New York (NJ) Giants at San Francisco 49ers, 49ers favored by 3. The team nobody believed in for the whole year against the team that was written off and got hot. A top tier defense against an offense that is playing great. Two #1 picks at QB that have had many doubters over the years. Very divided on this game, but I'm going with the idea that defense wins in the playoffs, and I have more confidence in how San Fran's D matches up than I do in how the Giants' D does. Another weird score win for San Fran: 49ers 22, Giants 20.

NFL Playoffs, Round 2

A pretty good Round 1, going 3-1 both picking winners and against the spread. The Broncos game was a lot of fun, as was the Saints win. Moving on:

New Orleans Saints at San Francisco 49ers, Saints favored by 4. I understand why the Saints are favored on the road. They have a great passing attack, and an excellent running game, and it's hard to get excited about QB Alex Smith for San Fran. However, the 49ers have a great defense, and the Saints offense isn't anywhere near as good on the road as at home. The Saints won't be blown out, and could win in a blowout or a close one, but I think the 49ers use their own excellent running game to good effect and they win the turnover battle, and so win a close one. I almost want to predict it goes to overtime, 20-20, but I won't. 49ers 23, Saints 20.
Denver Broncos at New England Patriots, Patriots favored by 14. The Patriots certainly can score a lot of points on anybody, even a very good defense like Denver's. However, this line is too high. The Patriots defense is somewhat underrated, but is still fairly bad, and will allow the Broncos to put up enough points to keep it interesting. Moreover, I expect Denver to run the ball so much that it reduces the number of possessions, and thus limit the total score somewhat; if the Pats score 2/3rds of the points in a 60 point game, they'd cover, but it will probably be more like 60% and 50. Patriots 30, Broncos 20.
Houston Texans at Baltimore Ravens, Ravens favored by 9. You've basically got two defenses that are close to equal (slight edge to Houston) and two running games that are close to equal (slight edge to Baltimore), but a decent coaching advantage for the Ravens, home field advantage for them, and a better and more experienced quarterback. Ravens 24, Texans 13.
New York (NJ) Giants at Green Bay Packers, Packers favored by 9. I expect that Green Bay's offense will struggle at first, given the bye week and that Aaron Rodgers sat out week 17 completely. It may take a quarter, it may take a whole half, but the Packers will start to score like Magic Johnson the rest of the way. Meanwhile the Giants offense will be good but not great, as the Packers' D is like the Pats' D, bad but underrated. Packers 34, Giants 23.

Review

Looking back at my predictions for this NFL season, I see some very good calls, and some awful ones. Overall I think I did okay. I got 5 teams' win totals exactly right (Giants, Redskins, Falcons, Dolphins, Bills), 9 I was off by 1, and 9 I was off by 2. My worst call was the Rams, off by 7, with a 3-way tie for second worst at 6 off (Bucs, 49ers, Colts); I'd say Rams and Colts were very understandable/justified misses, Bucs and 49ers less so. My average error across all 32 teams was 2.2. I called 7 playoff teams correctly, but also said the aforementioned Rams and Bucs would make it and they didn't come close.

NFL Playoffs

First a review of previous years:
2011: 7-4 picking the winner, 6-5 against the spread
2010: 5-6 picking the winner, 4-7 against the spread
2009: 7-4, 6-4-1
2008: 6-5, 3-7-1
2007: 7-4, 6-5
2006: 5-6, 5-6
2005: 8-3, 7-4
2004: 5-6, 2-8-1
2003: 8-3, 4-7
Totals: 58-41 picking winners (59%), 43-53-3 against the spread (45%).

Cincinnati Bengals at Houston Texans, Texans favored by 4. Wouldn't be surprised either way in this one, but I think I'll take the rookie QB at home with the strong running game over the rookie QB on the road. There is definitely a risk of defensive TDs skewing things. Texans 17, Bengals 10.
(updated at 5:11pm)
Detroit Lions at New Orleans Saints, Saints favored by 11. I'm not very impressed with the Lions, and the Saints have been playing great. They can win a shootout, and they have an excellent running game to gash the Lions' poor run defense. That running might be the only reason it won't be a big blowout, by eating up the clock. Saints 38, Lions 27 (since that equals the line, call it 38.5 for the Saints).
Atlanta Falcons at New York (NJ) Giants, Giants favored by 3. The Falcons always beat bad and mediocre teams, and almost always lose to good teams. The Giants are all of those. However, I suspect the good Giants team will show up. Looks like the weather will be decent, helping Eli. Giants 23, Falcons 20 (call it Falcons 20.5 for line purposes).
Pittsburgh Steelers at Denver Broncos, Steelers favored by 9. The Steelers are missing Clark, Roethlisberger is hobbled, and the confusion factor for their D won't be a big factor against Tebow. And yet, they're still the better team. Don't count out the Broncos, but I doubt they'll generate the offense or turnovers to get it done. Steelers 20, Broncos 13.

NBA Predictions

Here are my predictions for NBA wins, team-by-team, plus the playoffs. Apparently Vegas has wimped out and isn't offering over/under lines, so even more than usual, read these as having no value.

Eastern Conference
Miami: 48-18
Chicago: 47-19
Boston: 39-27
Orlando: 39-27
New York: 36-30
Atlanta: 35-31
Philadelphia: 34-32
Indiana: 34-32
New Jersey: 34-32
Milwaukee: 28-38
Charlotte: 23-43
Detroit: 22-44
Washington: 21-45
Toronto: 19-47
Cleveland: 17-49

Western Conference
Oklahoma City: 46-20
Dallas: 44-22
Memphis: 41-25
Denver: 40-26
LA Clippers: 40-26
San Antonio: 39-27
LA Lakers: 36-30
Portland: 35-31
Houston: 32-34
Utah: 32-34
Phoenix: 31-35
New Orleans: 28-38
Golden State: 28-38
Sacramento: 21-45
Minnesota: 21-45

Pretty straight forward post-season predictions: Miami over Chicago in the Eastern conference finals, Oklahoma City over Dallas in the West, and Miami over Oklahoma City for the championship.

NFL predictions.

Here are my predictions for NFL wins, team-by-team, plus the playoffs. The over/under is in parenthesis. Read this post at your own gambling risk.

Philadelphia	10-6	(10.5)
NY Giants	9-7	(9.5)
Dallas	9-7	(9)
Washington	5-11	(6.5)
Chicago	9-7	(8.5)
Green Bay	11-5	(11.5)
Detroit	9-7	(7.5)
Minnesota	8-8	(7)
Atlanta	10-6	(10.5)
New Orleans	10-6	(10)
Tampa Bay	10-6	(8)
Carolina	5-11	(4.5)
Seattle	5-11	(6.5)
St. Louis	9-7	(7.5)
San Francisco	7-9	(7.5)
Arizona	6-10	(6.5)
New England	11-5	(11.5)
NY Jets	10-6	(10)
Miami	6-10	(7.5)
Buffalo	6-10	(5.5)
Pittsburgh	10-6	(10.5)
Baltimore	10-6	(10.5)
Cleveland	6-10	(6.5)
Cincinnati	5-11	(5.5)
Indianapolis	8-8	(9.5)
Jacksonville	6-10	(6)
Houston	9-7	(8.5)
Tennessee	6-10	(6.5)
Kansas City	8-8	(7.5)
San Diego	10-6	(10)
Oakland	7-9	(6.5)
Denver	6-10	(5.5)

NFC division winners: Philadelphia (#2 seed), Green Bay (#1 seed), Atlanta, Saint Louis. Wild Cards: New Orleans, Tampa Bay.
AFC division winners: New England (#1 seed), Pittsburgh, Houston, San Diego (#2 seed). Wild Cards: NY Jets, Baltimore.

NFC Championship game: Philadelphia over Green Bay.
AFC Championship game: New England over San Diego.

Super Bowl: New England over Philadelphia.

Caught him, wet-handed

Lolcat.
(Not an original title on my part)

With Friends Like These...

Ugh. In the course of a pretty good column on taxes and the economy, Boskin proceeds to destroy his credibility with a stupid claim. "The lower marginal tax rates in the 1980s led to the best quarter-century of economic performance in American history." I mean, is he trying to convince people that tax-cut enthusiasts are just charlatans? We can support lowering tax rates without resorting to this sort of thing, people.

Grasping Reality?

Ha!
"Megan McArdle's major problem is that she is looking at one table--Table 1.1 in OMB's Historical Tables. She is not reading Hoover's Budget Messages" (it goes on like this).
Translation: McArdle's problem is she is looking at the data instead of the rhetoric.
Really? This is the best you can do, Professor? If you want to claim that spending should have increased a lot more than it did, or that Congress tried to increase spending by more than actually happened, or that Hoover tried to cut spending, or that his tax increases were contractionary, that's all fine and defendable, and probably true. Lines of criticism of McArdle along those lines I have no problem with. However, the evidence is crystal clear, government spending under Hoover went up, and claims that cuts in spending exacerbated the Great Depression are false. Grasp reality, not ideology.

The Right Tool, at the Wrong Time

(Background to let you know what this is about here, here, and here).
I can prove that Greg Mankiw is a better economist than is Paul Krugman. How? Well, Paul is something like 5'6", and Mankiw is 6'2". Therefore, anyone claiming otherwise is selling voodoo.
What's that you say? You think that that's not a good way to show what I want to show? Well, you must be pretending to be stupid. I mean, NBA scouts use height to judge prospects. And height has a lot to do with a man's attractiveness.
True, height doesn't have much correlation to economic knowledge or wisdom. So? Krugman's economic brilliance must be puny if he's not even close to Mankiw in height.

Not Disappointed, just Angry

Of course this had to happen. I hope there's a good explanation it, like it was someone imitating Rand Paul as a joke. The lesson, as always, you can't trust any politicians.

NBA Finals

First, I should review my record so far. Round 1, 6 out of 8 right. Round 2, 3 out of 4 for my pre-playoffs picks, 2 out of 4 at the time. Round 3, 1 out of 2 pre-playoffs, 0 right in between rounds 1 and 2, and 1 out of 2 at the time. So 9 out of 14 overall, counting just the picks made at the beginning of each round. Probably average.
So, the Finals. Miami Heat against Dallas Mavericks. As Bucher said, "good versus evil" (not that I see it that way, but it is the way it seems most do). People look at the Heat as either a 2 or 3 man team (I sometimes have), but Mike Miller (and to lesser extent Haslem as well) has played well for them. It appears as though they now have a legit 5 man lineup to put out there at crunch time. People are looking at Dallas as a one man show with a lot of depth; I think that overlooks how very good Jason Kidd and Tyson Chandler are. I kind of look at it as 2 through 5 the teams are pretty much even, Dallas has a much better bench, and LeBron is the best player in the league (so obviously in the series as well). Benches are less important in the playoffs than the regular season, plus Miami has homecourt advantage. If Dallas wins, it will be because they can take advantage of Miami's bench, maybe because of foul trouble for Wade or Bron, and if Dirk and the other shooters (with the team's excellent ball movement) can keep hitting shots. The Heat win by getting to the line a lot and by not giving up many open shots. I think The Heat win in 6.