Category Archives: Uncategorized
Deadspin: The problem with Bill Simmons
I liked this quote from the Deadspin article “The Bill Simmons Problem, In Two Paragraphs“:
This is the problem of Bill Simmons: He’s too smart to be as dumb as he used to be. —Tom Scocca
Cheers.
The United States Congress: Partisan and Ideological Make-up
xkcd has created a great visualization of the United States Congress across. I especially like how you can follow presidents through their time in the House or Senate. 
NFL Rankings – 10/31/2012
StatsInTheWild NFL rankings as of October 31, 2012 at 12:34pm. SOS=strength of schedule
| Team | Rank | Change | Record | ESPN | TeamRankings.com | SOS | Points Diff |
| Houston | 1 | ↑1 | 6-1 | 1 | 2 | 17 | +88 |
| Chicago | 2 | ↓1 | 6-1 | 5 | 3 | 9 | +85 |
| San Francisco | 3 | – | 6-2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | +86 |
| New England | 4 | ↑4 | 5-3 | 8 | 8 | 12 | +92 |
| Atlanta | 5 | ↑1 | 7-0 | 1 | 1 | 29 | +71 |
| Green Bay | 6 | ↓2 | 5-3 | 6 | 6 | 7 | +38 |
| NY Giants | 7 | – | 6-2 | 2 | 4 | 22 | +73 |
| Minnesota | 8 | ↓3 | 5-3 | 11 | 16 | 5 | +17 |
| Denver | 9 | ↑6 | 4-3 | 9 | 7 | 28 | +52 |
| Miami | 10 | ↑4 | 4-3 | 12 | 9 | 15 | +24 |
| Baltimore | 11 | ↑1 | 5-2 | 7 | 10 | 24 | +13 |
| Seattle | 12 | ↓3 | 4-4 | 13 | 12 | 4 | +6 |
| Arizona | 13 | ↓3 | 4-4 | 16 | 22 | 1 | -15 |
| Detroit | 14 | ↓1 | 3-4 | 17 | 13 | 2 | -13 |
| Pittsburgh | 15 | ↑4 | 4-3 | 10 | 11 | 31 | +23 |
| Tampa Bay | 16 | ↑5 | 3-4 | 21 | 23 | 23 | +31 |
| St. Louis | 17 | ↓6 | 3-5 | 23 | 20 | 3 | -49 |
| Dallas | 18 | ↓1 | 3-4 | 14 | 15 | 16 | -25 |
| NY Jets | 19 | ↓1 | 3-5 | 25 | 17 | 11 | -32 |
| Indianapolis | 20 | ↑2 | 4-3 | 15 | 14 | 19 | -35 |
| Washington | 21 | ↓5 | 3-5 | 19 | 19 | 21 | -14 |
| San Diego | 22 | ↑1 | 3-4 | 20 | 28 | 32 | +10 |
| Buffalo | 23 | ↑2 | 3-4 | 28 | 25 | 13 | -56 |
| Philadelphia | 24 | ↓4 | 3-4 | 18 | 18 | 20 | -35 |
| Cincinnati | 25 | ↑1 | 3-4 | 22 | 26 | 27 | -21 |
| New Orleans | 26 | ↓2 | 2-5 | 26 | 27 | 14 | -26 |
| Carolina | 27 | ↑1 | 1-6 | 30 | 30 | 18 | -39 |
| Oakland | 28 | ↑3 | 3-4 | 24 | 21 | 30 | -48 |
| Tennessee | 29 | ↓2 | 3-5 | 27 | 24 | 8 | -95 |
| Cleveland | 30 | – | 2-6 | 29 | 29 | 25 | -32 |
| Jacksonville | 31 | ↓2 | 1-6 | 31 | 31 | 10 | -85 |
| Kansas City | 32 | – | 1-6 | 32 | 32 | 26 | -89 |
Best
Best team in the league: Houston
Best undefeated team: Atlanta
Best 6 win team: Houston
Best 5 win team: New England
Best 4 win team: Denver
Best 3 win team: Detroit
Best 2 win team: New Orleans
Best 1 win team: Carolina
Worst
Worst 6 win team: NY Giants
Worst 5 win team: Baltimore
Worst 4 win team: Indianapolis
Worst 3 win team: Tennessee
Worst 2 win team: Cleveland
Worst 1 win team: Kansas City
Worst team in the league: Kansas City
Most
Most under-rated team: (#17) St. Louis (ESPN has them 23) and (#19) NY Jets (ESPN has them at 25)
Most over-rated team: (#24) Philadelphia (ESPN has them 18)
Cheers.
BCS: Why bother with the computers?
The BCS is either unbelievably brilliant or completely idiotic. They use computer rankings to legitimize themselves, while at the same time, completely ignoring the computer rankings.
Louisiana Tech is a perfect example of this. Currently, Louisiana Tech is 25th in the BCS standings in spite of the fact that exactly ZERO computer polls have them in the top 25. They crack the BCS standings by coming in at 23 and 24 in the USA Today and Harris polls, respectively. The polls outweigh the computers in such a way that they practically don’t matter.
Another good example of this is Florida State who currently sits at 9 in the BCS rankings. Five of the six rankings have the Seminoles in the top 25 with ranks of 12, 18, 21, 22, and 25, while Sagarin leaves them out entirely. Their average computer rank is 21. In both polls, however, they are currently ranked 7th. And thanks to the way the BCS performs the weighting the average of 7, 7, and 21 is 9. That’s BCS math for you.
The weighting for the BCS is one-third each for the two polls and one-third for the computer rankings. However, if you look at the top 13 in both BCS polls, they are exactly the same. This has the effect of essentially using only one poll but giving it two-thirds weight and giving the computers only one-third. Voters can simply get together and vote in such a way that renders the computers meaningless. Only one of the six computer rankings, Richard Billingsley, has Alabama ranked number 1, and yet they are nearly a unanimous number one in the voting. Some more solid BCS math for you.
Whoever set up the BCS either had no idea what they were doing, tried to set-up a fair, rational system of ranking incorporating human voters and computers, and failed spectacularly, or knew exactly what they were doing, incorporated computers to make themselves look legitimate, and was wildly successful in maintaining the status quo. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between genius and insanity.
Cheers.
RIPPEN after week 8
Alex Smith’s performance on Monday night was the best performance by a quarterback in any game this season with a RIPPEN of 57.977. The next closest performance was Aaron Rodgers in week 7 with a RIPPEN of 43.235.
Smith’s incredible performance on Monday night wasn’t perfect though according to passer rating. He only charted a 157.1, which is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Take a look at the list of games where the QB has ended with a perfect rating and try to tell me with a straight face that Alex Smith’s Monday night performance was worse than all of these. For instance, in 2005 Roethlisberger finished a game 9 for 11 with 232 passing yards and 2 TD and a perfect passer rating. How in the world can that be better than Alex Smith’s 18 for 19 performance for 232 yards and three touchdowns? It’s because passer rating is terrible.
RIPPEN rankings for week 8 performances:
| Player | Team | RIPPEN | QB rating |
| Smith, A. | SF | 57.977 | 157.1 |
| Manning, P. | DEN | 32.232 | 138.9 |
| Ryan, M. | ATL | 30.023 | 137.4 |
| Brady, T. | NE | 26.385 | 131.1 |
| Roethlisberger, B. | PIT | 24.045 | 121.0 |
| Stafford, M. | DET | 23.692 | 101.7 |
| Luck, A. | IND | 21.747 | 89.5 |
| Wilson, R. | SEA | 19.716 | 96.8 |
| Cutler, J. | CHI | 18.324 | 83.3 |
| Freeman, J. | TB | 17.853 | 104.2 |
| Newton, C. | CAR | 17.054 | 57.0 |
| Ponder, C. | MIN | 16.026 | 74.8 |
| Bradford, S. | STL | 16.004 | 88.9 |
| Cassel, M. | KC | 14.130 | 85.1 |
| Gabbert, B. | JAX | 13.057 | 80.6 |
| Manning, E. | NYG | 12.378 | 58.4 |
| Rodgers, A. | GB | 12.331 | 95.7 |
| Romo, T. | DAL | 12.222 | 58.3 |
| Palmer, C. | OAK | 10.750 | 83.8 |
| Vick, M. | PHI | 10.046 | 84.3 |
| Griffin, III, R. | WAS | 9.623 | 72.8 |
| Sanchez, M | NYJ | 8.801 | 65.6 |
| Skelton, J. | ARI | 8.159 | 68.6 |
| Brees, D. | NO | 8.158 | 72.8 |
| Weeden, B. | CLE | 7.906 | 55.9 |
| Tannehill, R. | MIA | 3.299 | 50.4 |
| Rivers, P. | SD | 2.015 | 65.1 |
Season RIPPEN rankings through 8 weeks of games:
| Player | Team | RIPPEN | QB rating |
| Manning, P. | DEN | 30.093 | 109.0 |
| Rodgers, A. | GB | 24.579 | 107.9 |
| Brady, T. | NE | 23.768 | 100.6 |
| Griffin, III, R. | WAS | 23.374 | 97.3 |
| Smith, A. | SF | 22.617 | 102.1 |
| Ryan, M. | ATL | 22.566 | 103.0 |
| Schaub, M. | HOU | 22.415 | 93.1 |
| Newton, C. | CAR | 21.982 | 75.2 |
| Roethlisberger, B. | PIT | 20.834 | 101.4 |
| Brees, D. | NO | 18.954 | 93.0 |
| Freeman, J. | TB | 18.242 | 93.3 |
| Manning, E. | NYG | 17.580 | 89.1 |
| Bradford, S. | STL | 17.485 | 82.4 |
| Locker, J. | TEN | 17.147 | 90.2 |
| Romo, T. | DAL | 16.548 | 78.8 |
| Stafford, M. | DET | 16.317 | 82.1 |
| Tannehill, R. | MIA | 16.205 | 75.8 |
| Ponder, C. | MIN | 16.113 | 85.8 |
| Cutler, J. | DEN | 15.904 | 78.9 |
| Dalton, A. | CIN | 15.372 | 87.7 |
| Luck, A. | IND | 14.992 | 74.6 |
| Vick, M. | PHI | 14.703 | 78.6 |
| Wilson, R. | SEA | 14.229 | 82.4 |
| Palmer, C. | OAK | 14.062 | 85.7 |
| Flacco, J. | BAL | 13.770 | 84.0 |
| Rivers, P. | SD | 13.328 | 82.4 |
| Fitzpatrick, R. | BUF | 12.039 | 86.1 |
| Weeden, B. | CLE | 11.485 | 70.8 |
| Sanchez, M. | NYJ | 11.484 | 72.8 |
| Cassel, M. | KC | 10.430 | 69.0 |
| Kolb, K. | ARI | 9.662 | 86.1 |
| Gabbert, B. | JAX | 8.943 | 77.9 |
| Skelton, J. | ARI | 8.363 | 64.5 |
| Hasselbeck, M. | TEN | 8.039 | 83.3 |
Cheers.





