Blog Archives

NFL Picks – Week 3

Total –  SU: 32-16-0 (66.67%) ATS: 27-20-1 (57.29% +5 Units) O/U: 31-17-0 (64.58% +12.3 Units)

Week 1 – SU: 10-6-0 ATS: 8-8-0 O/U: 13-3-0

Week 2 – SU: 10-6-0 ATS: 10-6-0 O/U: 10-6-0

Week 3 – SU: 12-4-0 ATS: 9-6-1  O/U: 8-8

Tampa Bay at Atlanta

Prediction: Falcons 24-20 (62.5%)

Pick: Buccaneers +6.5 (55.8%)

Total: Under 45

San Francisco at Arizona

Prediction: 49ers 22-20 (55.9%)

Pick: Cardinals +3 (52.7%)

Total: Under 42.5 

San Diego at Buffalo

Prediction: Bills 23-22 (51.8%)

Pick: Chargers +2.5 (55.3%)

Total: Over 44.5

Tennessee at Cincinnati

Prediction: Bengals 24-19 (64.5%)

Pick: Titans +7 (55.1%)

Total: Under 43.5 

Baltimore at Cleveland

Prediction: Ravens 22-21 (53.5%)

Pick: Browns +2 (52.2%) PUSH

Total: Over 42

Green Bay at Detroit

Prediction: Lions 25-24 (53.4%)

Pick: Lions -1 (50.5%)

Total: Under 52.5

Indianapolis at Jacksonville

Prediction: Colts 23-20 (57.4%)

 Pick: Jaguars +7 (62.3%)

Total: Under 45.5 

Kansas City at Miami

Prediction: Dolphins 21-19 (55.9%)

Pick: Chiefs +5 (58.2%)

Total: Under 41.5

Oakland at New England

Prediction: Patriots 29-19 (77.2%)

Pick: Raiders +14.5 (61.5%)

Total: Over 47

Minnesota at New Orleans

Prediction: Saints 27-20 (68.3%)

Pick: Vikings +9.5 (58.0%)

Total: Under 51

Houston at NY Giants

Prediction: Giants 22-21 (51.1%)

Pick: Giants +2.5 (58.2%)

Total: Over 42

Washington at Philadelphia

Prediction: Eagles 25-22 (59.8%)

Pick: Washington Football Team +6.5 (58.6%)

Total: Under 50

Denver at Seattle

Prediction: Seahawks 24-22 (54.6%)

Pick: Broncos +4.5 (58.2%)

Total: Under 49

Dallas at St. Louis

Prediction: Cowboys 23-22 (53.0%)

Pick: Rams +2 (52.7%)

Total: Under 45.5

Pittsburgh at Carolina

Prediction: Panthers 23-20 (59.4%)

Pick: Steelers +3.5 (50.5%)

Total: Over 41.5

Chicago at NY Jets

Prediction: Bears 21-20

Pick: Bears +2.5 (60.1%)

Total: Under 45.5

Obama’s gonna win because the Red Sox didn’t win at least 75 games

Many people may be aware of the so called Redskins Rule for predicting presidential elections.  Basically, the rule states:

If the Redskins win their last home game before the election, the party that won the previous election wins the next election and that if the Redskins lose, the challenging party’s candidate wins.

This basically means that Romney is a virtual lock to win the presidency after the Redskins fell 21-13 to the Carolina Panthers at home.  The Redskins rule has successfully predicted the results of the presidential election 17 out of 18 times since 1937, only failing once in 2004.  17 out of 18 is pretty good, but it’s also only been successful 50% of the time in the last 2 elections; Not so great recently.  Football has had it’s run as the go-to sport for projecting presidential elections, but it’s time for it to step aside and let America’s past time take over predicting political outcomes.  After all, who knows America better than baseball?

Consider this: Boston has won 75 or more games AND Philly has won 91 or fewer games in the same season 11 times in the last 16 years that presidential election was held (1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2000, and 2004).  In 9 of these 11 years, the Republican party won the presidency.  The two exceptions were Clinton in 1996 and Truman in 1948.  Conversely, Boston has won less than 75 games OR Philly won 92 or more games in 5 times in the last 16 presidential election years (1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, and 2008).  The Democratic party has won all five of those elections.  So, if either Boston is terrible or Philly is very good, the Democrat wins.  Otherwise the Republicans win with high probability.  Using just Boston and Philadelphia, the model correctly chooses the winner 14 out of 16 times.

But let’s take a closer look at what went wrong in the two years that were mis-classified: 1948 and 1996.  What happened the year Clinton ran for re-election?  The Indians won 99 games.  And what happened in 1948?  The Indians won 97 games.  In fact, in the past 16 presidential election years, the Indians have only won more than 93 games twice.  And both of those years were misclassified using only Boston and Philadelphia as predictors.  By adding in Cleveland to the model, we can now correctly classify all of the past 16 presidential elections.  In hind sight it seems obvious that we need to add the Indians into our model as everyone knows how important it is to include Ohio in any model predicting the presidential race.  (I wonder if “Dewey defeats Truman” could have been avoided entirely if the newspapers had relied on the number of Indians regular season wins rather than polls based on biased samples.)  The point here is that Ohio really is the most important state in the electoral college.

So, let’s review the three events that need to occur for a Republican to win the presidency and see how they apply to this years race:

1.  The Phillies need to win less than 92.

This is great for Romney as the Phillies were a completely average 81-81.

2. The Indians needs to win les than 97 games.

The Indians were atrocious in 2012 finishing with a records of 68-94 more than 25 games below the 97 game barrier.  This is second step toward a Romney victory.

3.  The Red Sox need to win at least 75 games.

Now, as every Red Sox fan knows, the Red Sox did not win 75 games this year.  In fact, they finished 69-93, so we have to predict an Obama victory, even in the face of the Redskins rule.

So, for the record:  I’m predicting an Obama victory.

However, this is only where things start to get interesting.  For a team to win 76 games, they need a winning percentage of 46.91%, and the Red Sox finished with a winning percentage of 42.6% and missing the mark needed to ensure victory for Romney.  Would anyone care to hazard a guess what the Red Sox winning percentage was at the end of August?  The Red Sox were 62-70 for a winning percentage of 46.97% on August 31.  They were on pace to win exactly 76 games and ensure a Republican triumph. However, they went one to finish the season 7-23, missing the necessary win total to ensure a Romney presidency.  Now, clearly, an organization as sophisticated as the Red Sox would be aware of such an obvious statistical relationship as this one; Bill James wasn’t born yesterday after all.  Further, the Red Sox and everyone else were aware at the beginning of the 2012 season that it was unlikely that the Phillies nor the Indians would likely reach the magic win marks for the Democratic Party.  Therefore, it seems likely, even probable, that the Red Sox goal in 2012 was to lose at least 86 games in order to ensure a second Obama term.  Does that sound crazy?  Well, here are two key pieces of evidence to support my argument:  Bobby Valentine and “the trade”.  Clearly, if they were trying to win baseball games, a baseball organization wouldn’t hire Bobby Valentine.  Secondly, the Red Sox traded away some of the core players of their team.  Specifically, on August 25, the Red Sox traded away Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, and Carl Crawford to the Los Angeles Dodgers.  Sure, the Red Sox front office will claim that it was to “dump salary”, but isn’t it possible that the Red Sox front office realized that on August 25 their record was 60-66 and on pace to win 77 games and made the trade to affect the outcome of the election in November?  Just think about the two parties involved in the trade: Boston, which is the capital of one of the most liberal states in the country, involved in a trade with Los Angeles, which is in a state that could not be more blue if it tried.  So, like I said, we’re the Red Sox JUST a terrible baseball team in 2012 who hired a manager who has never won anything and traded away some of it’s best players to get some expensive contracts off the books?  Maybe.  But isn’t that also exactly the story you’d use to cover up your tracks if you were the owner of a baseball team who was intentionally trying to lose at least 88 games in order to guarantee a victory and second term for Barack Obama?  I’m just saying.

See you back in reality on November 7.


NCAA Football Rankings – 11/4/2012

Rank Team Record
2 OREGON 9-0
8 TEXAS A&M 7-2
12 GEORGIA 8-1
13 LSU 7-2
15 TEXAS 7-2
16 CLEMSON 8-1
17 USC 6-3
19 UCLA 7-2
22 ARIZONA 5-4

Full Rankings

What does MVP mean anyway?

By James O’Connor

What does it mean to be the Most Valuable Player in Major League Baseball? Is it the player who added the most wins to his team? The player who added the most wins to his team, so long as they made the playoffs? Can it ever be a pitcher? Is it the player who contributed the most to his team down the stretch?

Admittedly, MVP is always going to be a subjective award, based on the perception of the members of Baseball Writers Association of America selected, in any given year, to vote for the award. But modern statistics give us some insight into how those writers make their decisions—even if it is not entirely clear to them when they are voting.

First, let’s look at a few possible methods of selecting the MVP. Wins Against Replacement or WAR is a fairly recent statistical calculation that measures (words). It quite literally measures what player had the most valuable impact on his team in a given year. Yet, only five times in the past 25 years has the American League leader in WAR been awarded the MVP.

How about awarding the MVP to the highest WAR player on a playoff team? This may help. 21 of the previous 25 AL MVP’s were on teams that went to the playoffs (including for the purposes of this article, Frank Thomas, whose Chicago White Sox were in first place in the AL West in 1994 before the player’s strike ended the season). But even this doesn’t completely answer our question. Many of the players who won the award were not even the top WAR players on teams that made the post season. In 2006, Justin Mourneau won the MVP with a WAR of 4, while his teammate, Johan Santana led the league in WAR with 7.3 wins against replacement.

Some may argue that a pitcher should not be eligible for the award, anyway. This is where things get particularly tricky. One issue is that the voters change on a yearly basis. If a voter doesn’t believe a pitcher should not win the award, he can simply leave the pitcher off the ballot and doom his chances. See Martinez, Pedro, 1999. But the reality is, pitchers, do win the award on occasion. It has been posited that this honor is saved for pitchers only when they have had a truly transcendent and historic year. This theory is simply not backed up by the numbers.

In 2011, Justin Verlander was the AL MVP with a WAR of 8.2, good for second in the league. It was a truly awesome season by any measure. The league leader in WAR? You guessed it: Ben Zobrist. Zobrist carried an 8.5 WAR and his Rays made the playoffs. He finished 16th in MVP voting. You can’t entirely blame the writers for going with Verlander though. He was a monster.

Going back for a moment though, how good was Verlander’s year historically? Obviously, WAR is not set up to measure 2011 Verlander to 1999 Pedro Martinez, but the statistic does measure them against their competition for the award. Over the last 25 years, the following pitchers led the league in WAR, but did not win the MVP: Roger Clemens (1987, 1992, 1997), Brett Saberhagen (1989), Kevin Appier (1993), Randy Johnson (1995), Pedro Martinez (1999, 2000), Santana (2006), Zack Greinke (2009). In fact, Clemens’ 1997 campaign (11.8) and Martinez’s 1999 season (11.4), are the two best seasons as measured by WAR in the last 25 years. So, was Verlander’s 2011 season more deserving of the MVP? Probably not.

It’s not as if the MVP voters are picking completely randomly, though. In fact, over the last ten years, seven AL MVPs were in the top three in WAR. Of course, the other three (Mourneau, 2006; Vladimir Guerrero, 2004; and Miguel Tejada, 2002), were 10th or worse in the league in WAR. What happened and how did they win the MVP award?

A couple things to look at here. First, all three of those teams made the playoffs. That helps. As I mentioned earlier, despite the fact that Mourneau was not even first on his team in WAR, he was second to pitcher Santana, who undoubtedly lost votes based on the perception that pitchers should not win the award (however inconsistent this theme is, it’s impossible to ignore that it often does affect voting). Same story for Tejada in 2002, who was behind teammate Barry Zito (6.4) in WAR.

In 2004, the league leader in WAR was Ichiro Suzuki (7.5), whose team won 63 games. You can understand why the voters might not associate “valuable” with a team that lost 99 games. Guerrero took home this prize that year despite a WAR of 5.2, which was good for only 10th in the league. Likewise, in 2002, Tejada and his 5.3 WAR won the award over Alex Rodriguez and his 8.6 WAR. Of course, Alex’s Rangers won 72 games.

So, the argument against the WAR winners from those seasons makes (some) sense. Two played for dreadful teams, one suffered from anti-pitcher bias. But what about the rest of the players ahead of Mourneau, Guerrero and Tejada? This is where intangibles step in. The question in voters minds: Did you have a MOMENT?

Let’s look, for example, at Guerrero’s 2004 season. His OPS for the final month of the season was 161 points higher than his full season OPS. While his Anaheim Angels only went 17-14 over that stretch, they finished on a tear going 7-2 and slipping into the playoffs. While his full season WAR was not at the top of the league, it looked (probably accurately) like he single handedly dragged them into the playoffs in the end. He had a MOMENT. It was fresh in the voters’ minds and he got the MVP.

So is it a great September performance that puts a player on the top of the MVP head? Not necessarily. In 2006, Mourneau put up a beefy .926 OPS, but in the final month of the season his OPS was only .884. What gives? Mourneau’s moment was not the end of the season, but rather the eight week period in June and July when the world was really introduced to the Twins first baseman. In June and July, Mourneau put up 1.137 and 1.130 respectively. Meanwhile his team went 37-15, a win/loss percentage of .711. For the season, the Twins won at a .596 clip. Mourneau had eight weeks where he played his best ball while his team tore through the league. He had a MOMENT.

Ok, so what about Tejada? He must have had one stretch where he absolutely crushed it, right? Not really. Tejada had a relatively so start in 2002, but for the most part he was consistent throughout the season. His monthly OPS was as follows: .813, .807, .867, .910, .879, .888. Definitely stronger in the second half, but not the major swings of Guerrero and Mourneau. So what was his moment? You’ve read or seen Moneyball, right? Yea, the most memorable thing to happen in 2002 (probably even more so than who won the World Series), was the Oakland A’s 20 game winning streak from August 13 to September 4. In a season in which the A’s lost Jason Giambi (who, interestingly led the league in WAR the previous year, but did not win the MVP) and Johnny Damon, Tejada was widely considered the best position player on the most memorable team of the regular season. In other words, that winning streak? It was a MOMENT.

A statistics purist would, of course point out that if these players were more consistent like, say all of the people ahead of them in WAR, then they would not have needed these MOMENTS. Undoubtedly true, but also sort of missing the point. Baseball is a game of memories. Intangibles. It’s about that Oakland fan who will never forget for the rest of his life the run the A’s made in 2002 or the heroics of Vlad Guerrero seemingly dragging his team into the playoffs in 2004. Yes, Rodriguez and Ichiro had great years in 2002 and 2004, but chances are most people (their agents aside), would just as soon forget those seasons ever happened. They were the most valuable players for their teams, but they were not the Most Valuable Players for baseball.

MVP will always be a contentious issue. Lots of times it won’t make sense. I mean, who had more of a MOMENT then Pedro Martinez in 1999 or Roger Clemens’ “twilight year” of 1997? But perhaps, through all the fog, there is some semblance of a rationale for how the writers vote for this thing—whether they know it or not.

NFL Predictions – Week 9

Overall Records for 2012

SU: 84-48

ATS: 72-60

O/U: 71-57-1

Week 9 (11-3 SU, 6-8 ATS, 6-7-1 O/U)

Week 8 (10-4 SU, 9-5 ATS, 9-4 O/U)

Week 7 (10-3 SU, 6-7 ATS, 6-7 O/U)

Week 6 (6-8 SU, 7-7 ATS, 6-7 O/U)

Week 5 (10-4 SU, 7-7 ATS, 7-7 O/U)

Week 4 (10-5 SU, 10-5 ATS, 12-2 O/U)

Week 3 (5-11 SU, 9-7 ATS, 9-7 O/U)

Week 2 (11-5 SU, 9-7 ATS, 8-8 O/U)

Week 1 (11-5 SU, 9-7 ATS, 8-8 O/U)

Week 9

Thursday @8:25pm

Kansas City Chiefs at San Diego Chargers

Prediction: Chargers win 25-19

Pick: Chiefs +8.5

O/U: Over 42.5

Sunday @1pm

Denver Broncos at Cincinnati Bengals

Prediction: Broncos win 24-23

Pick: Bengals +3

O/U: Over 47

Arizona Cardinals at Green Bay Packers

Prediction: Packers win 27-21

Pick: Cardinals +11

O/U: Over 44.5

Miami Dolphins at Indianapolis Colts

Prediction: Colts win 25-21

Pick: Colts +2

O/U: Over 43 PUSH

Baltimore Ravens at Cleveland Browns

Prediction: Ravens 24-18

Pick: Ravens -3.5

O/U: Under 42.5

Buffalo Bills at Houston Texans

Prediction: Texans win 27-24

Pick: Bills +10.5

O/U: Over 47

Carolina Panthers at Washington Redskins

Prediction: Redskins 27-24

Pick:  Panthers +3.5

O/U: Over 46

Detroit Lions at Jacksonville Jaguars

Prediction: Lions win 28-15

Pick: Lions -4

O/U: Under 44

Chicago Bears at Tennessee Titans

Prediction: Bears win 24-22

Pick: Titans +3.5

O/U: Over 43.5

Sunday @4:05pm

Minnesota Vikings at Seattle Seahawks

Prediction: Vikings win 24-23

Pick: Vikings +5

O/U: Over 39.5

Sunday @4:25pm

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Oakland Raiders

Prediction: Buccaneers win 22-21

Pick: Buccaneers +1.5

O/U: Under 45

Sunday @8:30pm

Pittsburgh Steelers at New York Giants

Prediction: Giants win 27-25

Pick: Steelers +3.5

O/U: Over 47

Sunday @8:30pm

Dallas Cowboys at Atlanta Falcons

Prediction: Falcons win 26-22

Pick: Cowboys +5

O/U: Over 47.5

Monday @8:40pm

Philadelphia Eagles at New Orleans Saints

Prediction: Saints win 27-26

Pick: Eagles +3.5

O/U: Over 52.5


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.


RIPPEN after week 8

An explanation of RIPPEN

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



NCAA Football Rankings – 10/28/2012

Rank Team Record
2 OREGON 8-0
8 LSU 7-1
10 TEXAS A&M 6-2
15 ARIZONA 5-3
16 USC 6-2
18 TEXAS 6-2
19 GEORGIA 7-1
22 CLEMSON 7-1
24 TCU 5-3

Full Rankings

Week 7 QB performances reviewed via RIPPEN

An explanation of RIPPEN

RIPPEN rankings for week 7 performances:

Player Team RIPPEN QB rating
Rodgers, A. GB 43.235 106.9
Brees, D. NO 36.220 129.0
Gabbert, B. JAX 34.483 133.8
Freeman, J. TB 25.252 124.7
Schaub, M. HOU 22.707 102.2
Griffin, III, R. WAS 21.789 133.7
Romo, T. DAL 21.277 97.2
Roethlisberger, B. PIT 20.522 91.3
Manning, E. NYG 20.269 87.8
Bradford, S. STL 19.503 112.0
Fitzpatrick, R. BUF 19.106 97.1
Brady, T. NE 17.217 87.4
Sanchez, M. NYJ 16.431 92.7
Luck, A. IND 16.258 79.3
Skelton, J. ARI 13.082 83.2
Smith, A. SF 12.449 56.6
Wilson, R. SEA 7.166 87.3
Palmer, C. OAK 6.411 69.8
Henne, C. JAX 2.510 75.0
Dalton, A. CIN 2.503 77.4
Flacco, J BAL 1.790 59.4
Ponder, C. MIN 0.705 68.9

Season RIPPEN rankings through 7 weeks of games:

Player Team RIPPEN QB rating
Manning, P. DEN 28.886 105.0
Rodgers, A. GB 26.970 109.6
Griffen, III, R. WAS 26.915 101.8
Newton, C. CAR 24.975 79.3
Brady, T. NE 23.842 96.9
Ryan. M. ATL 21.828 98.8
Schaub, M. HOU 21.496 93.1
Brees, D. NO 21.221 96.1
Roethlisberger, B. PIT 21.141 98.6
Freeman, J. TB 18.409 91.2
Romo, T. DAL 18.197 84.6
Manning, E. NYG 18.150 92.5
Smith, A. SF 17.786 93.9
Locker, J. TEN 17.197 90.2
Bradford, S. STL 17.192 81.5
Ponder, C. MIN 16.677 87.5
Cutler, J. CHI 16.631 78.3
Tannehill, R. MIA 16.344 76.5
Dalton, A. CIN 15.387 87.7
Rivers, P. SD 15.290 85.3
Stafford, M. DET 15.259 78.4
Vick, M. PHI 14.984 77.7
Luck, A. IND 14.880 72.3
Palmer, C. OAK 14.846 86.0
Wilson, R. SEA 13.782 79.5
Flacco, J. BAL 13.018 84.0
Sanchez, M. NYJ 11.985 74.6
Fitzpatrick, R. BUF 11.984 86.1
Weeden, B. CLE 11.671 72.3
Kolb, K. ARI 9.443 86.1
Skelton, J. ARI 8.876 68.9
Cassel, M. KC 8.209 66.2
Gabbert, B. JAX 8.194 77.1
Hasselbeck, M. TEN 7.748 78.2


NFL Predictions – Week 8

Overall Records for 2012

SU: 73-45 (61.86%)

ATS: 66-52 (55.93%)

O/U: 65-50 (56.52%)

Week 8 (10-4 SU, 9-5 ATS, 9-4 O/U)

Week 7 (10-3 SU, 6-7 ATS, 6-7 O/U)

Week 6 (6-8 SU, 7-7 ATS, 6-7 O/U)

Week 5 (10-4 SU, 7-7 ATS, 7-7 O/U)

Week 4 (10-5 SU, 10-5 ATS, 12-2 O/U)

Week 3 (5-11 SU, 9-7 ATS, 9-7 O/U)

Week 2 (11-5 SU, 9-7 ATS, 8-8 O/U)

Week 1 (11-5 SU, 9-7 ATS, 8-8 O/U)

Week 8

Thursday @8:25pm

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Minnesota Vikings

Prediction: Vikings win 25-22

Pick: Buccaneers +6.5

O/U: Over 42.5

Sunday @1pm

New England Patriots at St. Louis Rams (London)

Prediction: Patriots win 32-17

Pick: Patriots -7

O/U: Over 47

Indianapolis Colts at Tennessee Titans

Prediction: Titans win 21-20

Pick: Colts +3.5

O/U: Under 46.5

Jacksonville Jaguars at Green Bay Packers

Prediction: Packers win 29-14

Pick: Packers -13.5

O/U: Off the Board

San Diego Chargers at Cleveland Browns

Prediction: Chargers win 27-19

Pick: Chargers -3.5

O/U: Over 44.5

Atlanta Falcons at Philadelphia Eagles

Prediction: Falcons win 27-25

Pick: Falcons +2.5

O/U: Over 46.5

Seattle Seahawks at Detroit Lions

Prediction: Lions win 28-21

Pick:  Lions -2.5

O/U: Over 43.5

Miami Dolphins at New York Jets

Prediction: Dolphins win 22-21

Pick: Dolphins +2.5

O/U: Over 40.5

Carolina Panthers at Chicago Bears

Prediction: Bears win 27-24

Pick: Panthers +8

O/U: Over 43

Sunday @4:05pm

Washington Redskins at Pittsburgh Steelers

Prediction: Steelers win 24-21

Pick: Redskins +5.5

O/U: Under 47.5

Sunday @4:25pm

Oakland Raiders at Kansas City Chiefs

Prediction: Raiders win 24-23

Pick: Raiders +2

O/U: Over 41

Sunday @8:30pm

New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys

Prediction: Giants win 26-24

Pick: Giants -1.5

O/U: Over 47

Sunday @8:30pm

New Orleans Saints at Denver Broncos

Prediction: Saints win 33-24

Pick: Saints +6.5

O/U: Over 54.5

Monday @8:40pm

San Francisco 49ers at Arizona Cardinals

Prediction: 49ers win 24-20

Pick: Cardinals +7.5

O/U: Over 36.5