August 30, 2011

Why It's Okay To Consider A Pitcher For MVP

     No pitcher has won a major league MVP award since Dennis Eckersley in 1992.  The last NL pitcher to be named MVP was Bob Gibson in 1968, and all he had to do to get it was put up a 1.12 ERA.  So how did we get to this point, where pitching is stressed every season (even more so in the postseason), yet every year baseball people think there is someone more important in the league than its best pitcher?  Why are people so afraid to vote for a pitcher for MVP?

Pitchers already have their own award, the Cy Young.

     So make one for position players too.  The Willie Mays award for best overall position player.  Most Valuable means most valuable out of everyone.  Don't ruin that just because the current setup isn't fair. 
     And let's not forget that position players have the Silver Slugger and Gold Glove awards too.

Pitchers only play once every five games, or one inning per game.  Position players play every inning, every game.

     Position players also bat only 3 or 4 times a game.  Pitchers face every batter while they're in the game.  Need some stats to accentuate that point?  The MLB leaders in plate appearances tend to have around 750.  The pitchers who face the most batters tend to pitch about 1000 plate appearances.  So it turns out that pitchers actually do more work than position players as far as hitting situations go.  Add in defense and base stealing, and hitters make just as many plays as pitchers, if not fewer.
     Pitchers have to field too.  And even hit in the NL.
     So don't be afraid to throw Justin Verlander in the MVP race, or whoever else pitches really well in the coming years.  They're just as valuable as anyone else.

August 29, 2011

I Think It's Safe To Say...

...Dustin Johnson doesn't have final-round jitters.  More like fourth-round jitters.  So as long as the Masters gets rain-shortened next year, he'll be just fine.

August 26, 2011

Fan Rulebook: The Foul Ball

     I am inviting you, my readers, to be a "Fan Congress" for my upcoming project.  I will randomly bring up subjects relating to fan behavior in an attempt to make an "official" rule for fans.  Those will be collected in the Fan Rulebook on the left.
     I will start the process by writing out the rule I would make.  Then you can vote on it using the "reaction" buttons below the post.  A click on Funny or Interesting counts as "yes", and a click on Boring or Confusing counts as "no".  By doing it that way, you don't have to make the effort to comment, and I don't look like I'm begging for comments.  If you have a counter-proposal for a ruling, please feel free to leave it in the comments for consideration.
     I'll wait a week or so for each ruling before deciding whether or not to put each item in the Rulebook.  My decisions will be overruled by a 2/3 vote for no, with a minimum of 2 votes.

First on the docket:  Baseballs landing just out of play

     You're sitting in the front row, to the right of first base.  An opposing batter hits a pop-up in foul territory.  It's coming right at you, but so is your first baseman.  Do you go for the ball, a souvenir you'll never have a chance to get again?  Or do you support your team by letting the first baseman grab it and get an out?
     I tend to side with the fan on this one.  You are not obligated to help your team in any way.  You're actually paying the team so they will entertain you.  And that gives you the right to keep anything thrown or hit at you.  Your team could have avoided the situation by throwing better pitches.  The first baseman should be able to win the fight for the ball.  Otherwise he doesn't deserve it.

Ruling:  Fans at a baseball game have the right to reach for any ball hit toward them, regardless of whether or not a player is also reaching for it, provided that the reaching action does not put the fan onto the playing surface or any into any other dangerous situation.

August 23, 2011

Re: Terrelle Pryor

     Forget what I said in my last post.  Apparently Terrelle Pryor has now said he will not appeal his suspension.  So I ranted for nothing.

     Have fun in Oakland, my friend!

August 21, 2011

Terrelle Pryor Will Appeal His Five-Game Suspension?

     Are you kidding me? 

     He was allowed to play in a BCS Bowl after agreeing to come back this year and face a 5-game suspension.  The NCAA and Jim Tressel held up their end of the bargain.  Suddenly Jim Tressel gets coerced out of his job, and now Pryor just doesn't feel like returning for eight-thirteenths of his senior year.  Hey, how about the NFL?  He can just go there, not get suspended and make money, right?  One problem, the draft already happened, and to enter the supplemental draft, your eligibility status has to have changed (Pryor's had not).  So the NFL, understanding how awkward it would be for Pryor to return to Ohio State, lets him enter the supplemental draft.  But wait, now there's no punishment for him breaking NCAA rules and breaking his promise to his school.  The NFL decides that it would only be fair to move his agreed-upon five-game suspension to his first NFL season.  I have no problem with any of this.  (Except Pryor being allowed in the Sugar Bowl but that's not really the issue at hand here.)

     How does Pryor re-pay the NFL for its infinite kindness?  He make plans to appeal his suspension.  I understand he wants to do what's best for his career, but at some point you have to own up to your wrongdoings and take your punishment like a man.  If I was the GM of a team, I would stop considering him right now.  He's been fighting the system throughout the whole thing, and I don't expect him to be any different once he gets signed by a team.

August 17, 2011

The U

     Nevin Shapiro says he gave awesome/illegal stuff to 72 Miami Hurricanes football players between 2002 and 2010.

     Does anyone else get the feeling he wanted to make sure that 2001 championship wasn't vacated?

August 16, 2011

Is Parity A Good Thing For Golf?

     100 of the top 102 golfers in the world played in the 2011 PGA Championship.  None of them won.  There have been 13 different winners in the last 13 majors.  The last 7 major winners had never won a major before.  After years of domination by Tiger Woods (and to a lesser degree Phil Mickelson), parity has finally hit the PGA Tour.  But fans are divided on whether or not the unpredictability of golf tournaments makes them more exciting.
     Some people like the fact that unknown players have been beating the odds and winning recently.  However, I feel like you can't really have an upset or a Cinderella story without them beating a much stronger opponent.  Y.E. Yang needed Tiger Woods, the way the 2007 New York Giants needed the 18-0 Patriots, or the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays needed the Yankees and Red Sox.  If Rocco Mediate plays an extra 19 holes against Jason Dufner for the U.S. Open, nobody cares.  If Rocco Mediate plays an extra 19 holes against an injured Tiger Woods for the U.S. Open, it's a huge deal.
     Somebody needs to step up and become that fearsome opponent on the Tour.  Maybe it's Rory McIlroy, who was at or near the top in 4 straight majors before fizzling out in the last two.  Maybe it's Dustin Johnson, who has been thisclose to winning a couple of majors and has a ton of natural ability.  It could be #1-ranked Luke Donald.  It might even be Tiger Woods again.  But without one or two players that excel above the rest, any upset or comeback is going to fall short on the excitement scale.
     Don't get me wrong:  I'll always take Keegan Bradley erasing a 5-shot deficit in the last three holes over McIlroy winning the U.S. Open by 8.  Thrilling golf always comes first.  But it needs that extra boost to put it over the top, and right now that's just not happening.

(My apologies to Keegan Bradley, for not mentioning your name until I was 283 words in.  Congrats on the win!)

August 15, 2011

Fixing The FedEx Cup

     The PGA Championship is done, and that means it's almost time for the FedEx Cup playoffs, an event that should be really exciting but always finds a way to fall short.  In 2007, Tiger Woods didn't even play in the first tournament and still ended up dominating.  In 2008, Vijay Singh was guaranteed the championship before the final event even started.  The 2009 edition featured a lot of drama throughout, but ended when Phil Mickelson won the Tour Championship but was not named champion of the PGA Tour.  The 2010 version ended with Jim Furyk jumping 10 spots to win the Cup after a one-shot win in the last tournament.
     But what can be done to make the tournament more exciting?  The setup used in '09 and '10 works really well, but one thing needs to change:  the Tour Championship, the final event in the FedEx Cup playoffs.  My problem is the point system.  Nobody wants to have to deal with points when a championship is on the line.  Nobody wants to see one player win but have the point system give the real title to another guy.
     What if instead of using points in the final event, they used a handicap system?  There's already a points reset before the championship.  So have the #1 player start at even par, the #2 and #3 at +1, the #4 and #5 at +2, and so on until #30, who starts at +15.  Then we'll be able to see right away who is leading in the FedEx Cup contest instead of having to wait for the CBS guys to tell us.  No confusing points system, just real golf scores.  The winner without handicaps can still get a cool trophy.
     Another benefit of the handicap system is that theoretically, none of the players requires other players to fail in order for them to win the Cup.  If Bo Van Pelt wanted to go from 30th to 1st, he wouldn't need Matt Kuchar, Dustin Johnson, etc. to place below a certain spot in the standings.  He could take matters into his own hands by shooting a really low score (-20 would have worked last year).
     You know where else this would work?  NASCAR's Chase for the Sprint Cup.  Last year, only three drivers had a chance to win the Cup in the final race, and with the points being how they were, it was hard to tell who was leading.  I'd like to see them start the final race of the year at a standstill, and for each spot in the standings the cars would be spread a certain distance apart (I don't know racing as well so I don't have a suggestion).  Or they would all start in the pit and have to wait a predetermined amount of time before starting.  Then the winner of the race would win the Cup.  Simple.

     For the extra-curious, this is how the FedEx Cup would have played out under the rules proposed above:

-2007:  Tiger Woods wins by 11 or so
-2008:  Camilo Villegas wins in a playoff against Sergio Garcia (Vijay Singh is not close)
-2009:  Tiger Woods wins by 4 over Phil Mickelson, Sean O'Hair, and Steve Stricker
-2010:  Luke Donald wins by 1 over Jim Furyk

August 13, 2011

Thoughts From The Packers/Browns Preseason Game

-Best name I've seen in a while:  Shaky Smithson
-Browns CB Ramzee Robinson broke up two passes in the game.  After each one, he did some kind of "blowing a kiss and spreading it out" celebration.  For an incomplete pass.  As if that was something out of the ordinary for him.  Remind the Browns' GM to keep that guy; he really likes tipping passes.  Really likes it.

Why BCS Lovers Should Rethink Their Stance

     A lot of arguments against the BCS consist of intangible things like fairness, greed, and playing games on the field rather than on paper.  This is not one of those arguments.
     As a sports fan, I love the BCS.  It forces teams to schedule tough (aka exciting) games, it makes for amazing discussion between college football watchers, it gives teams an incentive to try in every regular season game, and it adds a level of excitement to mid-season games that normally wouldn't be there.  There's one problem with the BCS though.  It does a horrible job with the one thing any postseason is meant to do:  find the best team.
     I know what you're thinking.  How is an undefeated team not the best team?  Look at it this way:  If a team has an 80% chance of winning each game, there's a 5.5% chance that they win 13 in a row.  A team that wins 90% of its games has a 25% chance of winning 13 in a row.  We get undefeated teams by a combination of skill and luck, not because a certain team is unbeatable.  So while it's more common for a better team to go undefeated than a merely good one, the better teams still have a low chance of achieving a perfect season.
     This idea led me on one of my random mathematical experiments back in January.  What if we knew exactly how good each team was before the season started?  How often would the BCS crown the actual best team as the champion?  Would a 4, 8, or 16 team playoff really be better?
     Note:  The red brackets signify text under the Unnecessary Math Talk Alert.  Skip ahead if you wish.
     [I started by creating a hypothetical NCAA, giving each of the 120 teams a True Winning Percentage (my term for how often a team would win in an infinite number of games against an average team).  The top team was given a TW% of 90%.  Using those percentages, I simulated 50 seasons consisting of 12 games against average teams.  (There was an average of 2.22 undefeated teams per year.)  Ties were broken in a random fashion.  The final step was simulating a 2, 4, 8, and 16 team playoff for each season, using Bill James' Log5 formula in combination with the TW%'s.]
     Here's how it went:


In Numbers:
Average Actual Rank of Champion:  9.40
Standard Deviation of ARC:  11.32
Percentage of Correct Champions:  4%
Median of ARC:  5
Worst ARC:  59
Champion is in the Actual Top 2:  18%
Champion is in the Actual Top 5:  52%
Champion is in the Actual Top 10:  76%

In Words:
     The hypothetical BCS crowned the best team as champion only 4 percent of the time, by far the worst among the postseasons tested.  It was the worst in every category measured.  The real best team made the BCS title game 12% of the time, which is less than the frequency with which it won the championship in every other situation.  The BCS even gave a title to a truly average, 59th best team.

4-Team Playoff

In Numbers:
Average Actual Rank of Champion:  6.68
Standard Deviation of ARC:  7.92
Percentage of Correct Champions:  14%
Median of ARC:  4
Worst ARC:  39
Champion is in the Actual Top 2:  30%
Champion is in the Actual Top 5:  66%
Champion is in the Actual Top 10:  86%

In Words:
     The 4-team playoff settled in nicely as the 2nd worst option.  It named top-2 and top-5 teams as champions more frequently than the 8-team playoff but was still prone to some really bad seasons.

8-Team Playoff

In Numbers:
Average Actual Rank of Champion:  5.56
Standard Deviation of ARC:  4.48
Percentage of Correct Champions:  18%
Median of ARC:  5
Worst ARC:  20
Champion is in the Actual Top 2:  28%
Champion is in the Actual Top 5:  58%
Champion is in the Actual Top 10:  88%

In Words:
     The 8-team playoff was the "game manager" of postseasons.  It didn't crown great teams as often as its 4-team and 16-team counterparts did, but it didn't produce any ridiculously bad results.  Auburn started last season ranked #22 and won the title.  That's the equivalent of the worst season the 8-team playoff put up in this simulation.

16-Team Playoff

In Numbers:
Average Actual Rank of Champion:  5.60
Standard Deviation of ARC:  6.25
Percentage of Correct Champions:  18%
Median of ARC:  4
Worst ARC:  32
Champion is in the Actual Top 2:  34%
Champion is in the Actual Top 5:  70%
Champion is in the Actual Top 10:  90%

In Words:
     If the 8-team playoff was the "game manager" of the simulation, then the 16-team playoff was its Brett Favre.  It was the best at making great teams the champion, but it did produce some crazy seasons as well.  In one, the 32nd best team won as a 9-seed.  In another, the 29th best team won as a 16-seed.  I may write that off as a flaw, but I'm sure somebody out there loves the possibility of a Cinderella/David that this system allows.

The Conclusion:  I started this project hoping to get numerical "proof" that the BCS was the way to go, and I was completely proven wrong.  The BCS doesn't work because of the sheer number of teams competing for the title.  There are so many decent teams that one of them is probably going to end up winning 13 games in a row.  By adding a playoff, those teams are forced to win 14, 15, or 16 games in a row, which is really tough when you're not that good to begin with.
     I want to throw my support toward the 8-team playoff because it's still sort of close to the BCS I love, but looking at the numbers objectively, I have to say that the best plan is a 16-team playoff, using the AP rankings, with no conference tie-ins.  You win, condescending media jerks.

August 10, 2011

My Vision For The 2011 NFL Season

AFC East
New England (12-4, 1st seed)
New York Jets (8-8)
Miami (5-11)
Buffalo (4-12)

     The Patriots have picked up a bunch of interesting pieces, and while that may turn out to be disastrous, I think they'll have a pretty good season.  This is a team that 14-2 last year, and I'm pretty sure they got better.  As for the Jets, I hear about all the guys they lost and only one guy they picked up (Plaxico).  At some point, their string of AFC championship appearances has to end, and I think this is the year.  Miami will be terrible after losing Ronnie Brown, and Buffalo is a long way from contending for anything.

AFC North
Baltimore (11-5, 3rd seed)
Pittsburgh (11-5, 5th seed)
Cleveland (6-10)
Cincinnati (4-12)

     I tend to overrate Baltimore, but I really like that team.  Pittsburgh remains relatively unchanged after last year's Super Bowl loss.  The Browns are somewhere between decent and bad, and one of the Bengals' best players would rather retire than play for that team, so that can't end well.  Nothing new to see in the AFC North.

AFC South
Indianapolis (10-6, 4th seed)
Houston (9-7, 6th seed)
Tennessee (8-8)
Jacksonville (5-11)

     I don't believe that the Colts can keep overacheiving the way they have in previous years.  This is not a great team, but with Peyton they'll still win the division.  The Texans may have lost out on Nnamdi Asomugha, but they've been considered one of the most talented teams for the last few years now.  They have to make the playoffs soon.  Tennessee has Chris Johnson, some good defensive players, and a solid veteran quarterback in Matt Hasselbeck.  I see them doing better than most people would expect.  The Jaguars, on the other hand, are still boring and fanless, and should suffer again this year.

AFC West
San Diego (11-5, 2nd seed)
Oakland (7-9)
Denver (6-10)
Kansas City (5-11)

     I can tell that the first thing you noticed is me putting the Chiefs last in the division.  I don't trust any team that has an unexplainable jump in wins from one year to the next.  I don't think the Chiefs really got that much better; they just played very well last year.  Expect them to go back to a pre-2010 level of production.  San Diego seems to always do well in the regular season, so there's no reason to mess with that.  Oakland is talented, though slightly less so without Asomugha.  Denver isn't great but should be alright with Tebow.

NFC East
Philadelphia (13-3, 1st seed)
Dallas (10-6, 6th seed)
New York Giants (8-8)
Washington (4-12)

     I can't get past the fact that the Eagles are loaded.  That doesn't always help come playoff time, but it should be really beneficial in the regular season.  Dallas played really well with Jon Kitna and Jason Garrett last year, so I don't think it's too much to expect them to make the playoffs with Tony Romo and Jason Garrett.  Maybe I've just been listening to Colin Cowherd too much.  The Giants have Osi issues and aren't that great anyway.  Washington has a mess at the QB position, little talent across the board, and an egotistical, annoying coach.  They should thank me for giving them 4 wins.

NFC North
Green Bay (12-4, 2nd seed)
Minnesota (10-6)
Detroit (9-7)
Chicago (7-9)

     Minnesota?  10-6?  What?  Hear me out on this one.  I love Minnesota's roster as a whole.  They have Adrian Peterson, a great run blocking O-line, the Williams Wall, Jared Allen, and some good linebackers.  Add in Donovan McNabb trying to prove himself, and the Vikings could do great things.  I see the Packers as the Giants of 2008, coming off a Super Bowl win as a wild card, winning a bunch of games in the regular season, but not quite getting it done in the playoffs.  I'm unsure about their chemistry with so many "new" guys coming off the IR.  Detroit is becoming really good, but the playoffs are still out of reach for them.  And Chicago overperformed a lot last year.  There's no way they go 11-5 again.

NFC South
Atlanta (12-4, 3rd seed)
New Orleans (11-5, 5th seed)
Tampa Bay (7-9)
Carolina (5-11)

     The Julio Jones move was awesome in my opinion.  The Falcons' offense will be as close to unstoppable as you can get.  New Orleans has most of their players coming back, so they'll be fine.  The Bucs' record last year was way too good in so many ways, but I like them enough to only drop 3 of those wins.  And Carolina is just not that good.

NFC West
San Francisco (8-8, 4th seed)
Arizona (7-9)
St. Louis (6-10)
Seattle (5-11)

     And you thought the Minnesota thing was the weirdest prediction I'd make.  Originally, I gave Seattle 4 wins (a mess at QB), St. Louis 5 wins (they improved by 6 wins last year and should come back down a little), Arizona 6 wins (I don't hate Kolb but I don't think he'll do as much as everyone thinks), and the 49ers 6 wins (a mess at QB but good pieces everywhere else).  Then I realized playing against NFC West opponents would help each team's record, so I added one win to each team.  Still, another 7-9 division winner didn't make sense.  Needing to put one more win somewhere to get a league total of 256, I went with a complete hunch and gave it to the Niners.  They do have Frank Gore and Patrick Willis.


3 Ravens defeat 6 Texans
5 Steelers defeat 4 Colts

2 Chargers defeat 3 Ravens
1 Patriots defeat 5 Steelers

2 Chargers defeat 1 Patriots

     I seem to do this every year.  But at some point the Chargers will win playoff games.  It's not like they've lost all of them by a lot.  They're just not catching the breaks, and I think they can catch those breaks this year.

3 Falcons defeat 6 Cowboys
5 Saints defeat 4 49ers

3 Falcons defeat 2 Packers
5 Saints defeat 1 Eagles

3 Falcons defeat 5 Saints

     This played out as a series of redemptions.  The Falcons become motivated by their timid playoff performance last year, and return the favor the Packers gave them in 2010, by beating them at their own stadium.  The Saints know not to take the NFC West winner lightly this time around, and not only defeat the Niners soundly but also beat the top-seeded Eagles.  The Saints come close to the NFC title but can't quite pull it off.

Super Bowl:  Falcons defeat Chargers, 20-15

Think you can do better?  Enter the Predict the Season Contest!

August 6, 2011

Railing Against The "Total Quarterback Rating"

     I feel the need to rant, because ESPN thinks they can replace the Passer Rating I know and love.  Feel free to ignore as much of this as you want.  Here it goes:
     Who does ESPN think they are?  They think they can just come up with some kind of crazy stat and we'll all play along?  I only trust stats developed by random people in some obscure company, the way it's supposed to be done.  And what's this about passer rating being confusing?  It only uses five stats!  It's not that hard.  You want confusing?  How about a number created using an unknown number of obscure stats and video analysis?  How am I ever supposed to understand that?  I can go to ESPN to see a quarterback's TQBR in a certain game 12 hours after the game?!  I can see passer rating within a second or two!  TQBR correlates with winning more than passer rating does?  Why does that even matter?  Of course ESPN would make a metric that's biased toward winning quarterbacks.  Hey guys, there's this thing in football called defense.  Look it up.  If your defense sucks and your quarterback can't get any clutch opportunities because of it, that's not his fault.  And what's with this Year of the Quarterback thing?  That's like every year on ESPN.  You know football is 11-on-11 and not 1-on-1, right?  Maybe you read the number wrong, that's two ones.
     I'm running out of steam.  Thanks for your time.

August 4, 2011

The Best Interview In Sports

     Nyjer Morgan's latest post-game interview got a lot of exposure on ESPN a few days ago, just like the "didn't know I had the game-winning hit" interview did earlier this year.  That got me to thinking, "Is Nyjer Morgan the best interview in sports today?"  There are a lot of guys that will give you a string of cliches like "one game at a time" and "it is what it is".  Only a few give you opinions and other interesting matter.  Which current player or coach provides the most enjoyable interviews?  Let's take a closer look at the contenders for the title:

Nyjer Morgan
Strength:  You never know what he's going to say or do, but it will always be weird.  This is a guy who created a gentleman name for himself (Tony Plush) and brought in a silver Elvis wig last year for the player of the game to wear for the post-game press conference.  He has an endless supply of absurdities to use with the media.
Weakness:  He's too over-the-top for some people, and can be hard to understand at times.
Case Study:

Brian Wilson
Strength:  A general aura of awesomeness.  Whether he says funny things or just stands there with that ridiculous beard, Brian Wilson is flat-out interesting.
Weakness:  You have to sift through a lot of normal speech to get to the amazing quotes.
Case Study:

Ray Lewis
Strength:  Intensity.  Ray is always passionate when he talks, and that makes people want to pay attention.  Also, the way he phrases things is amazing, like when he described crime as, "evil, which we call crime".
Weakness:  Lack of humor, whether real or just perceived.  You never get a quote from Ray that you could laugh at and use when talking to your friends.
Case Study:

Dwight Howard
Strength:  He's a big, goofy, lovable guy.  He'll do impressions, and play pranks on other people, and pretty much anything else you ask him to do.
Weakness:  Not one to give a straightforward opinion on a subject, most of what he does is impressions and the like.
Case Study:

Ozzie Guillen
Strength:  Unpredictability.  He'll give you a hilarious quote one second and an expletive-filled tirade the next.  You never know what to expect.
Weakness:  His interviews are not child-friendly and sometimes hard to understand.
Case Study:

Ron Artest
Strength:  Personality and craziness.  He's a weird dude, and that can show up in an interview at any moment.
Weakness:  Thanks to his psychiatrist, he's much more mellow now.
Case Study:

Bart Scott
Strength:  Like Ray Lewis, Bart is very passionate.  He may never have another "Can't Wait" moment, but he's never afraid to talk trash.
Weakness:  Not as fun or unpredictable as some of the others on this list.
Case Study:

The Decision:  Ray Lewis comes close, but I just can't put him above Nyjer Morgan.

I know I missed somebody on this list.  Who do you think should be on it?

August 1, 2011

QB Greatness Scale, Part 5: The Active Player Leaderboard

     For anyone that missed the first four Greatness Scale posts or wants to re-read them, here are some links for you:

Part 1:  The Intro
Part 2:  All-Time Best QB's
Part 3:  Best QB's of 2010
Part 4:  Weird Findings and Other Randoms

     This entry was originally going to be about what Peyton Manning had to do to beat Joe Montana in the GS and what Tom Brady had to do to beat both of them and other things like that, but I couldn't work up the passion or interest to do it properly. So instead you get the Active Player Leaderboard, which I will randomly update throughout the NFL season.

Current Greatness Scale Standings for Active Players:
1. Peyton Manning, 235.0 points (2nd out of the 49 all-time QB's I ran the numbers for)
2. Tom Brady, 231.5 points (4th overall)
3. Philip Rivers, 211.5 points (12th overall)
4. Ben Roethlisberger, 211.0 points (13th overall)
5. Drew Brees, 208.7 points (15th overall)
6. Tony Romo, 204.8 points (18th overall)
7. Aaron Rodgers, 201.9 points (20th overall)
8. Donovan McNabb, 200.0 points (24th overall)
9. Chad Pennington, 198.4 points (26th overall)
10. Mark Brunell, 192.3 points (28th overall)

     Did you like the Greatness Scale Project?  If so, what other things should it rate?  Do you agree with the rankings it provided?  And is it still too early for a BCS post?