Figuring Out Derrick Lewis, "Sabina Holloway", The Aeneid and Betting Markets
Derrick Lewis cost me a bunch of money. Again.
I’m a little tight on time this week (these NBA Top Shots aren’t going to sell themselves, and I need to do something to recoup the losses from my Curtis Blaydes bets), so let’s skip past a long formal intro this week and get right into it.
The Derrick Lewis Conundrum
Derrick Lewis is one of the most unusual fighters in the UFC, even if we're not talking about his fight style or his personality They way his fights play out make his career trajectory and any potential match-making really strange.
For the average fighter, we learn a lot with each fight. Max Holloway was a +120 underdog the first time he fought Jose Aldo. For their immediate rematch he was a -307 favorite.
Even though we'd had a big sample-size to draw on for each one heading into the first matchup, that result gave us lots of new information to judge the following fight.
Derrick Lewis doesn’t really give us that, though.
The "Lewis can score a knockout in a fight he's otherwise losing" path to victory is typically his most likely — and that's priced into a betting line. When he knocked out Alexander Volkov, that didn't tell us it was wrong that Lewis was the underdog — that knockout potential is simply why Volkov wasn't a bigger favorite.
But what about if he didn't land that knockout, and Volkov survived another 11 seconds for a decision. Would that tell us Volkov should have been an even bigger favorite? Also no. Lewis could have a (round number for simplicity) 30% chance of knocking Volkov out, and 25 percentage points of that 30 would be in fights he was otherwise losing. So even if the result happened to land in the 70% "didn't knock Volkov out" band, that doesn't tell you the 30% was wrong.
We saw a similar result with Blaydes. Lewis' most likely path to victory in that fight was always a knockout after trailing. Yes, he stopped the one real takedown attempt Blaydes got in on, but he was also getting picked apart from distance, and avoiding a takedown for 6.5 minutes doesn't tell us a ton.
If they had an immediate rematch Blaydes would probably be favored again (albeit by a smaller margin).
That makes things especially tricky when we're talking about Derrick Lewis as a title contender. Obviously after you put together enough high-profile wins, you should be in title contention. But with Lewis, each subsequent win doesn’t tell us he's significantly more likely to win a potential championship fight than he would have been before the win.
This isn't meant as a knock on Lewis, either. You don't rack up the most knockouts in UFC history by accident. It's just that his inherently high-variance fight style tells us less over a small sample of fights than we'd learn about an average fighter in the same stretch.
I’m still not sure how actionable this is, and that will largely depend on how public perception is shaping up as his next fight approaches. It’s important at this stage not to get locked into any one opinion.
My initial thought, and the my usual philosophy around finishers like Lewis, is “people will be overrating Lewis based on the impressive win.” That’s also seeming to be becoming the common opinion on Lewis, however. That’s something to monitor whenever his next fight is announced — betting Lewis would go totally counter to my usual strategies, but I’ve certainly made stranger bets in my life.
Sabina Mazo
There are 904 fighters in UFC history who have at least 45 minutes of octagon time.
Among those 904, Sabina Mazo ranks 3rd in significant strikes landed per minute when fighting from distance, averaging 8.38 per minute (or one landed every 7.2 seconds). She also ranks third in the group in attempts per minute, at 20.41 (or one attempt every 2.9 seconds).
For context, Max Holloway averages 7.37 landed and 16.7 attempted per minute.
The only fighters in that sample ahead of Mazo in landed per minute are Karol Rosa (10.35) and Joanne Calderwood (9.00). The only fighters ahead of Mazo in attempts are Rosa (21.11) and Leonard Garcia (21.18).
Making Weird Links Between What I’m Reading and Sports Betting
Because I’m a totally normal, well-rounded person who doesn’t tend to obsess over my passions, I have a tendency to link everything I’m reading to sports betting, analytics or probability — even things that aren’t at all related.
One of the many books I have on the go right now is Virgil’s Aeneid. Like most classics the basic concepts from the Aeneid have been recreated to the point of cliché. I’m finding it surprisingly engaging and entertaining in a way I wouldn’t have expected, though, and I also find those clichés feel a lot more fresh, and carry much more impact in their original form.
Early in the story, Aeneas recalls the story of the fall of Troy, including the famous Trojan Horse.
Laocoon cautions:
Do not trust the horse, Trojans! Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks, even when bringing gifts.
For my purposes, the Greeks here are the betting markets.
A good sports bettor needs to have a very healthy respect for the betting markets. Even when (and perhaps especially when) the markets appear to be bringing gifts.
Sometimes, in an extreme situation, a betting line will actually be a total gift. Think McGregor-Mayweather. In these situations there’s usually a pretty obvious explanation as to why the market is giving you the gift.
But when the gift is unexpected, you should be on guard.
Betting markets are obviously not unbeatable, or none of us would be profitable sports bettors, but they are incredibly sharp. If you believe someone has a 70% chance to win a fight but the markets are implying they’re at 30%, you need to step back and re-consider. The market can be wrong, can be stupid, and can give you gifts, but usually the value you find will be hard-fought, taking relatively thin edges.
If a betting line seems like a gift, don’t let your guard down and simply accept the gift. It may seem like the betting markets are being stupid, but let that feeling be what reminds you to really cover your bases and make sure you’re not the one being stupid about that line.
I touch on this in my book, but re-evaluating when my initial reaction was “this line is a gift” worked out well last year for me with Anthony Smith vs Glover Teixeira:
Nikita Krylov by Submission …
… is still available at a very Julian Marquez-esque +900, if long-shot prop bets are your cup of tea.
Clinch Striking
Only four fighters in UFC history have landed more significant clinch strikes than Angela Hill's 262:
Rafael Dos Anjos (274)
Joanna Jedrzejczyk (303)
Nate Diaz (330)
Demetrious Johnson (359)
Stat Package Discount for Newsletter Readers
Save this week's newsletter, because here's a discount code for you.
As I mentioned last week, I will be launching an advanced stats subscription package in time for UFC 259. Whether you're buying the package for one card or subscribing for a longer period, newsletter readers will be able to use the discount code "newslettersubscriber" to lock in your discount.
I still haven't put the finishing touches so I don't have any screenshots to share, but this is going to include every metric that I calculate myself for my own personal betting and DFS analysis on a weekly basis. From relatively simple rate stats like control rate to my own knockdown rate metric to Striking Efficiency vs Expectation.
I'm taking a day off work this week to get it all set and ready to go, and I'm very excited to show you all what I've been working on!
Thanks so much to everyone for reading. As always, feel free to reply to this email if you have any questions, feedback or topics you’d like me to write about in future editions.
Great work as always!
Thank you so much for this stat package! I can't wait to subscribe. 😁