Real Analysts Don’t Watch Red Zone
Or at least when they do, they recognize sampling bias
Well, I backed off of that one pretty quick. Truth is, I watch a lot of Red Zone. I also fell victim to overlooking the sampling bias that causes. In my defense, I am a transplant. Red Zone is often my only chance to see my team play.
This article was inspired by a conversation I had recently with a friend and colleague. He mentioned a certain team that he felt had bankrupted their future on the promise of an under performing quarterback. We won’t name names here, to protect the innocent and all that.
I note to my friend — let’s call him Bane. That is not his real name either, but if it helps feel free to picture the bad guy from Batman. If not, feel free to picture a tallish gentlemen with prematurely white hair. One of those is probably right. Also feel free to imagine his voice sounding like Winnie the Pooh talking through a snorkel or if you prefer a slight southern accent and a smile that makes you believe he is the only one in on a joke that you may or may not be the butt of… one of those is probably right, too.
Sampling Bias
Unlike fivethirtyeight, who built the graphic on the left, I noted to Bane that I often found the QB in question to be impressive using only the bias sample I received from watch Red Zone. Bane, who clearly had a better sample set than I, noted a myriad of flaws and inconsistencies. These were things one could only garner from watching complete games.
Coming to my own defense again, I quickly realized my mistake. The conversation quickly turned to other nuances of the game that would also be lost on the Red Zone only viewer. Interestingly enough, many of these insights were unveiled by a different sort of sampling, player testimony. It is an ingredient the major networks attempt to interject via color commentators but which is often cut out by Red Zone.
Red Zone isn’t evil, but it is bias
Red Zone is enjoyable, the bias actually enhances that. Just don’t make the mistake I did of forming an opinion based on what you see. Red Zone does provide anecdotal evidence of exceptional players and exceptional plays, but it does little to provide a true sense of the game.
Red Zone even brings you mistakes, but it suppresses some valuable feedback. The NFL Network is not in the habit of showcasing general incompetence, under performance, or the otherwise boring… For some players, this is bigger part of the game then their fans or critics would appreciate.
So maybe real analysts do watch Red Zone, but they are very careful what opinions they choose to form from it. Maybe Bane had to be a super villain to break … my bias. Or maybe it just took a conversation with a wily smart ass with a dash of southern charm. Both have been known to make grown men cry… and throw chairs.
Thanks for reading! And beware of Bane…
For more lessons from the NFL:
For more fun with Batman:
