Causation, Correlation and Sport Science

Looks like the show Sport Science (on ESPN) might take the place of Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman as the target of my bad-science attacks. Note: it looks like ESPN has the short episode I will be attacking online, so check it out.

Let me start off with the big problem (which The Onion already talked about). Why do you want to make a show about science that has really terrible science (if you can even call it science)? I really don't get that. If you want to just talk about cool sports stuff, do that. Please don't call it science. Ok. Now on to the particular attack.

In the last episode, Sport Science wanted to predict the results of the upcoming Super Bowl game between the Colts and the Saints. To do this, they looked at some stuff from the past 10 years.

i-a0c90b9740e60a143b1cfd3de70b371b-2010-02-07_0207101111_00jpg.jpg

As you can see, they looked at 4 things for the two quarterbacks playing in the game: height, weight, age difference, and state they were born in. From this, they concluded that Peyton Manning "has the edge". I am paraphrasing what they actually said, but this is basically what it was. So? What is the deal. The deal is that Sport Science fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never confuse correlation with causation."

Really, this is a classic blunder. It means that just because in the past, two things have happened together (like if the Saints won every time I wore my lucky underwear) that doesn't mean that my lucky underwear made them win (but it doesn't mean that it DIDN't make them win either). I think xkcd said it best:

PS - Go Saints

More like this

Here in the United States, it's Super Bowl Sunday, and the Colts play the Saints for the championship of our National Football League. We listen to music that pumps us up, we eat lots of food (it's the second highest day for food consumption behind Thanksgiving), and -- of course -- we watch…
I want to give ESPN's Sport Science another chance. The segment on Tim Tebow didn't really have any errors. I thought, cool - what about this one on Jason Pierre-Paul? Here is the clip. Oh wait, embedding is disabled. Ok - if you want to watch go here (the image is a link) The goal of this…
Tom and Jerry, or Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman? Answer: Tom and Jerry. What? Yes. The reason: Tom and Jerry has bad physics but does not pretend like it has good physics. I know this is probably going to "type-cast" me as "that guy that keeps attacking Ruff Ruffman." Soon to be followed by "Leave…
I did not appreciate the sentiment that the New York Yankees had to win the World Series because Osama Bin Laden blew up the World Trade Center. I do not appreciate the sentiment that the New Orleans Saints have to win the Super Bowl because George Bush let poor New Orleans residents die in the…

I thought I was the only one to notice this crap...

The "funny math" they use for forces is equally annoying.

How has such a show won an emmy? (It may be a sports emmy, but still)
And nice Princess Bride reference; I'm surprised I remembered that quote.