I take a skeptical approach to evaluating conventional and unconventional sports wisdom alike. I attempt to take nothing on faith, including my own findings. In the course of my analysis, I will use data, statistical inference, simulations, modeling, market-watching, and whatever other tools I possibly can, while trying to recognize the limitations of each. Above all, I believe in a veridical approach to sports analysis: one that is not partisan to any particular method or model, but to finding the best possible answers that take us as close as possible to the truth.
Praise for Skeptical Sports Analysis:
“Neat site, and not just because Dennis Rodman and I are the two most frequent tagged subjects (tied at 2).” -Brian Burke (on Twitter)
“This is the most thorough deconstruction of rebounding statistics I have ever seen. As a longtime fan of the Worm, I am impressed and eagerly awaiting the rest of this series.” -bmoore_ucla (in the comments)
“So, I now read the Skeptical Sports blog, which is very remarkable in that I think it, unlike almost all other quantitatively sophisticated analysis, has an interesting pluralistic approach.* To fully unpack what I mean by that would take a while, but let’s just say that I find that blog unique and worthwhile. . . .
*Before I edited this post, that sentence read: ‘…takes seriously the Aristotelian dictum that different inquiries require different methods, starting-points, and success-criteria.’” -Nate. (on 2+2) [full disclosure: Nate is a friend, so he is slightly biased, but he also doesn't say things like this lightly]