This is not a persuasive rejoinder to rigorous sports analysis
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.
Leave Peter Alone! I need my kissesReport
Man, criticizing Peter King… how daring!Report
I eagerly await your contrarian defense of PK’s predictive powers, Freddie.Report
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.Report
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.Report