Ethan 55

I typically like Don Banks and find him even-handed in his articles, but this one has huge holes in it. It seems like the type of article that you write because you're bored with writing the same thing over and over again.

I understand the 6.1 ppg is a statistical mistake, but isn't that the basis of his article? That they aren't beating teams soundly anymore? When you change the number to 10 ppg, it doesn't even make sense any more. Indy is the only team in the league that averaged 10 ppg more than their opponent for the season, and suddenly that's poor over a 6-game stretch?

And they've only dominated one opponent? 28-0 at halftime wasn't domination?

Choosing 6 games is awfully suspect too, isn't it? Seems like a number chosen strictly to enforce his points. Not the last month, not the 2nd half of the season, not since the bye...6 weeks. Funny that if you choose any number of weeks to go back between 2 and 16, the lowest point differential average is...6 weeks. Over the last month (4 games), they've beaten teams by an average of 2 TDs (13.75). Over the last 2 months (8 games), they've beaten teams by an average of 2 TDs (13.875)

This was absolutely a case of trying to find facts (and that's used loosely since he seems to have ignored things and messed up his numbers) to support an idea...that the Patriots haven't been that good lately. It's not a case of a guy looking at the numbers and reaching a conclusion based on them.

PatriotsReign

I think the Patriot WERE vulnerable toward the end of the year. The key word being "WERE". They were vulnerable because it was getting late in the season and several of their oponents were mediocre at best.

They are NO LONGER vulnerable because they know they are 3 wins from taking the super bowl. This is the position the Patriots love...one & done! They will have no mental lapses or lack of motivation. They will be their usual Playoff-intense selves. Personally, I think anyone who believes they were losing it toward the end of the season and this may carry into the playoffs is not a student of the game.

The Patriots will be more intense than they have been at any point in the season. They will execute better than they have to date. I have no doubt because I've watched every single game since BB & Tom Brady came here. That is their MO & I have no doubt it will carry them through once again.

Look at last year's loss to the Colts. Think about the Patriots team that played that game and think about the team we now have...NIGHT & DAY my brothers....night & day.

primetime

Banks has been pro-Patriots the whole way. This is fact-checker error, not his own. To be fair, the point he made was valid: the Patriots have begun to look vulnerable. Every team is vulnerable... but it's all about winning games, and the Patriots did that better than any team in history.

patchick

Umm...guys, this isn't the 1920's New York Times. No online columnists have "fact-checkers"! (In fact, precious few print publications do either these days. Just this week a newspaper reporter interviewed me, then published an article misquoting me with both my first and last names spelled wrong.)

It's an honest mistake by Banks, and an easy one. BUT, given that it appears to be the basis for his whole argument, he should probably apologize and rewrite. Averaging a 10-pt margin of victory over a 6-game spread is pretty darned dominant by most standards.

primetime

You're wrong. Actually, in this day and age of lawsuits and litigation over everything, fact-checkers are even more important. Even most university publications have fact-checkers, who can be dual-role editors or (for larger publications) specifically making sure these numbers and calculations and the like are correct. SI is a publication that undoubtedly employs a few.

letekro

Why would a publication that writes about public sports figures be worried about litigation?

First, if you're a public figure, it's almost impossible to prove defamation.

Second, 99.9% of these articles contain nothing that could be considered defamatory. No one is getting defamed if the number of touchdowns they have scored this year is erroneously reported.

marcus

I think you should cut the guy some slack.
He is dead on.
Overall as the season wore on, it became more difficult for the patriots to dominate as they had in the first 10 games.

The margin of victory is irrelevant.

The truth is:

1) Their pass rush and defense has to improve
2) Their running game has to be more consistent.

Banks is a very fair writer and he was pretty much spot on with this piece.

primetime

That's the reason they have fact-checkers, though. Stastics and erroneous math can cause problems... defamation isn't a big worry for these types of publications, but bad facts can create problems. Trust me, I've worked with publications that have fact-checkers on staff.

patchick

Wow, do you really think they have fact-checkers re-run every football, baseball and basketball statistic for every column? That would absolutely shock me -- it would be a huge expense against precious little risk of a lawsuit. (What's the potential litigation in, say, miscalculating the Celtics' free-throw percentage during a road trip? What damages and defamation?)

FWIW, my husband and I have been interviewed by dozens of publications including lots of national magazines and newspapers, and only two have ever called/written to confirm facts: The New Yorker and National Geographic. In other words, the old-line magazines, a dying breed.

primetime

I think they're told to take a look at it. Like I said, editors usually double as fact-checkers anyways (for obvious reasons). A zillion and four letters written to columnists and editors about every wrong statistic are usually enough to keep at least one of these guys on staff, and enough to get journalists to at least double-check their statistics before going to print or uploading the document, in the case of internet columns.

It's such a minor statistical error that no one would probably notice it, though, so the argument really doesn't matter. Calling poor Mr. Banks an idiot for miscalculating the margin of victory, which was then missed by whoever proofread the document as well (there, fair enough?) is hardly fair. He's been more than supportive of the Patriots this year and is one of the better football columnists out there. I think he's a better writer with more insight than Dr. Z (whose columns consist of an old fogie reminiscing about the glory days of the NFL... Norm Van Brocklin would never have put up with these whippersnappers!) and Peter King (my coffee was great!).

Some people get angry that anyone could imply the Patriots have weaknesses. The same people who will likely be driving a backhoe through those weaknesses if they happen to lose in the playoffs. It's bizarre, they're only a football team.