This is not a persuasive rejoinder to rigorous sports analysis

by Will on November 19, 2009

Peter King, being snide:

There are many reasons why I like the Patriots, but the biggest is that all the statisticians of the world got together the other day and ran all the Pats/Jets numbers through a computer the size of Niagara Falls, and this is the score that came out. And if the last week of Belichickian analysis has taught me nothing else, it’s that football games really are played on paper, not in real life.

I enjoy King’s columns, but let’s face it: the dude sucks at predicting football games. And making asinine comments about statistical analysis doesn’t disprove the value of actually crunching a few numbers.

Tagged as: football, Peter King, Statistics

Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

{ 5 comments }

1 Brett Favre's Ass November 19, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Leave Peter Alone! I need my kisses

2 Freddie November 19, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Man, criticizing Peter King… how daring!

3 Will November 19, 2009 at 8:31 pm

I eagerly await your contrarian defense of PK’s predictive powers, Freddie.

4 Michael Drew November 19, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Your link doesn’t go to the article, so i con’t really judge it too well. But the point that games aren’t played on paper is sound.

5 kth November 20, 2009 at 5:50 am

Right, Peter King, because a computer would never have predicted that the margin of victory in a Pats-Colts game would be 1 point.

Given that the trends outlined in Michael Lewis’ Moneyball constitute the most important sports story of the past decade-plus, the innumeracy of the MSSM is as baffling as it is aggravating.

Comments on this entry are closed.