Stupid statistics

By -
The existence of extensive computer databases has led sports analysts to continually offer up the most absurd facts as though they are relevant to a current situation. Today's example: "Since 1970, the Cowboys have won more road games (179) than any NFL team. San Francisco (178) and Miami (176) come the closest."

OK, is there a single person involved with the Dallas Cowboys in 1970 who is still involved with them today? (There might be, but if there are, they are scarce on the ground.) So how is how the 1971 or 1974 Cowboys performed on the road relevant to their upcoming game?

Well, because "statistics" are "scientific"!

Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp10:13 AM

    Well, the Cowboys are a continuing institution. Just because personnel change, that doesn't mean there isn't an institutional culture that might not carry over from coach to coach, quarterback to quarterback, etc.

    For example, perhaps the Cowboys have, since the days of yore, made a practice of traveling to the game venue earlier than other teams to acclimate themselves to the temperature, altitude, etc. Or perhaps the coaches have passed down some particular method of analyzing away fields and teams that works well.

    Or perhaps it's environmental. Maybe 450 feet above sea level is an optimal environment for playing well in locations at lower or higher altitudes (although I'd think Denver would be tops on that count -- the human body gets more efficient at oxygenating blood when it acclimates to higher altitudes, so coming to the lowlands their players should have more stamina, etc.).

    Or maybe you're right and it's just a BS statistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:13 PM

      Yes, it's possible there is something behind the stat. But simply on its face, I'd say it is explained by:
      1) The fact the Cowboys have been pretty good over the years, and
      2) Chance.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell10:36 PM

      "Well, the Cowboys are a continuing institution. Just because personnel change, that doesn't mean there isn't an institutional culture that might not carry over from coach to coach, quarterback to quarterback, etc."

      Abandoning that methodological individualism, I see.

      Delete
    3. Thomas L. Knapp6:16 AM

      I don't think that term means what you think it means.

      Delete
    4. Samson Corwell10:39 AM

      Probably.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more