ESPN's Problem With Statistics

[Midway Cat]

I haven't been watching ESPN's NCAA Tournament coverage closely this week, but I caught a few minutes of Cal's press conference yesterday. Graphics on the screen below him said "Kentucky has made 5 consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearances." As we all know, 2013 interrupted the streak.

No big deal. As usual, I just made a mental note of the mistake and went on about my business.

This morning, though, I've had the television version of Cowherd's show on in the background at the office. During the Jay Bilas interview, they were discussing the Wisconsin/UNC game. The graphics below said "UNC - 26 Sweet Sixteen appearances (most all-time)." First of all, they've shortchanged the Tar Heels. UNC actually has appeared in the Sweet Sixteen 31 times. Even worse, Kentucky has made 41 Sweet Sixteen appearances, 10 more than UNC. It's not even close.

I know it's silly to complain about this kind of stuff, but why is it so hard for ESPN, a network whose sole purpose is to provide sports-related information and coverage, to CHECK their stats. It takes very little effort. More important, though, fact-checking is a prerequisite to being considered a reliable news source.

What about you guys? Have you seen other ESPN mistakes that are so obviously incorrect that there's no reasonable explanation for the producers to have missed them?

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

For the unc stat, maybe they were meaning since the tourney expanded to 64 teams. I don't know, just guessing.

 

[Midway Cat]

Originally posted by Dennis Reynolds:
For the unc stat, maybe they were meaning since the tourney expanded to 64 teams. I don't know, just guessing.

It's a good thought, but UNC has made only 20 Sweet Sixteen appearances since 1985.

So...yeah.

 

[jgraf1]

The last few years ESPN has been really bad with their graphics and stat people. I don't know if they decided to cut cost in that department and use people who aren't as skilled, but yes their problems extend across every show, every channel, and every sport. And most of the time, like this, the errors are absurdly incorrect.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Saw a graphic on Sportscenter last night that said UK is trying to get to it's 32nd Elite 8 (most all time) and that UNC is trying to get to its 25th Elite8 (second most).......

 

[Midway Cat]

Originally posted by Mojocat:
Saw a graphic on Sportscenter last night that said UK is trying to get to it's 32nd Elite 8 (most all time) and that UNC is trying to get to its 25th Elite8 (second most).......

How could they make that kind of mistake? There's really no excuse.

For the record, Kentucky has appeared in 35 Elite Eights. A win tonight would result in our 36th appearance.

UNC has been in the Elite Eight 25 times. Advancing this year would mean a 26th appearance.

 

[carddead13]

The stat is recorded since 1975. That is the year that the tournament went to 32 teams. And yes, the numbers are correct.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

They have been really bad lately with errors. I'm guessing the cut back in some areas and it's starting to show.

 

[Ben101er]

Originally posted by Mojocat:
Saw a graphic on Sportscenter last night that said UK is trying to get to it's 32nd Elite 8 (most all time) and that UNC is trying to get to its 25th Elite8 (second most).......

Pretty tough for UNC to lead in sweet 16 appearances when UK has been to 31 elite 8's. Accuracy is not exactly their forte.

 

[KWilt43atbuzz]

Originally posted by SilentsAreGolden:
They have been really bad lately with errors. I'm guessing the cut back in some areas and it's starting to show.

Yeah, probably put the graphics guys to work on UK's pursuit of perfection....

 

[Midway Cat]

Originally posted by carddead13:
The stat is recorded since 1975. That is the year that the tournament went to 32 teams. And yes, the numbers are correct.

If 1975 is the starting point, explain the Elite Eight appearances stat that Mojo posted.

Since 1975, UNC has been to the Elite Eight 19 times. UK also has 19 Elite Eight appearances during that time period.

Or are we to assume that it's okay for ESPN to cherry pick time periods to come up with their own statistics and then not explain the context?

Wouldn't it be easier to, I don't know, include all Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight appearances when your description of the statistic indicates that you're talking about "all-time appearances" in those rounds?

It's pretty simple--Explain the context of the statistics, or don't use them.

 

[Tilde]

Originally posted by carddead13:
The stat is recorded since 1975. That is the year that the tournament went to 32 teams. And yes, the numbers are correct.

This is the correct answer. The number they are using is the number of times a team has had to win a game to get into the sweet sixteen. Before this, by being in the tournament a team was already in the sweet sixteen. They could have been a bit more transparent about the statistic, but it's not really wrong per se (although perhaps a bit misleading to the average viewer).

 

[Midway Cat]

Originally posted by Tilde:

Originally posted by carddead13:
The stat is recorded since 1975. That is the year that the tournament went to 32 teams. And yes, the numbers are correct.

This is the correct answer. The number they are using is the number of times a team has had to win a game to get into the sweet sixteen. Before this, by being in the tournament a team was already in the sweet sixteen. They could have been a bit more transparent about the statistic, but it's not really wrong per se (although perhaps a bit misleading to the average viewer).

Yes, the Sweet Sixteen count is accurate if you start at 1975. ESPN's presentation of the statistic made it erroneous, but providing the context could have corrected the mistake.

So what's the explanation for the Elite Eight number? Only counting years where teams had to win a game to advance? Again, why not just explain the context?

As I said before, it's a silly complaint, but it would be nice if the only television network entirely dedicated to sports actually provided accurate information about sports.

 

[ZakkW]

Oh, there are myriad statistical errors everyday on there, as well as incorrect grammar and usage on the scroll. Annoys the hell out of me.

And why is 1975 the starting point? Cherry-picking years for stats is lame. No wonder the Card fan posting on this thread was all over it.

 

[*Bleedingblue*]

Originally posted by GTownJJB:
I haven't been watching ESPN's NCAA Tournament coverage closely this week, but I caught a few minutes of Cal's press conference yesterday. Graphics on the screen below him said "Kentucky has made 5 consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearances." As we all know, 2013 interrupted the streak.

No big deal. As usual, I just made a mental note of the mistake and went on about my business.

This morning, though, I've had the television version of Cowherd's show on in the background at the office. During the Jay Bilas interview, they were discussing the Wisconsin/UNC game. The graphics below said "UNC - 26 Sweet Sixteen appearances (most all-time)." First of all, they've shortchanged the Tar Heels. UNC actually has appeared in the Sweet Sixteen 31 times. Even worse, Kentucky has made 41 Sweet Sixteen appearances, 10 more than UNC. It's not even close.

I know it's silly to complain about this kind of stuff, but why is it so hard for ESPN, a network whose sole purpose is to provide sports-related information and coverage, to CHECK their stats. It takes very little effort. More important, though, fact-checking is a prerequisite to being considered a reliable news source.

What about you guys? Have you seen other ESPN mistakes that are so obviously incorrect that there's no reasonable explanation for the producers to have missed them?

Pretty sure they were talking about when we play in the NCAA tourney on being in the sweet 16 5 times in a row. When your not in the tourney its hard to not be in the sweet 16.

 

[Midway Cat]

Originally posted by *Bleedingblue*:

Pretty sure they were talking about when we play in the NCAA tourney on being in the sweet 16 5 times in a row. When your not in the tourney its hard to not be in the sweet 16.

Just out of curiosity, why would you think that? What about the graphic led you to that conclusion?

And, yes, you're correct--It's impossible to be in the Sweet Sixteen when you're not in the tournament. That's why it's so absurd that ESPN ran a graphic indicating that UK had made five consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearances. If they wanted the statistic to be as you described, they needed to include the context, a caveat, something.

This is the entire problem. Rather than providing accurate statistics, ESPN regularly broadcasts information that is incorrect on its face. So what lesson are we to learn from this practice? Take everything the network says, including recitation of verifiable facts, with a huge grain of salt because they're likely not telling you the entire story. That's not exactly confidence-inspiring.

I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but there are a couple of cable news networks out there who will remain nameless that do the exact same thing. I just don't understand it when it comes to sports. We're not arguing about political issues where reasonable people can disagree. These are facts.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Originally posted by *Bleedingblue*:

Originally posted by GTownJJB:
I haven't been watching ESPN's NCAA Tournament coverage closely this week, but I caught a few minutes of Cal's press conference yesterday. Graphics on the screen below him said "Kentucky has made 5 consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearances." As we all know, 2013 interrupted the streak.

No big deal. As usual, I just made a mental note of the mistake and went on about my business.

This morning, though, I've had the television version of Cowherd's show on in the background at the office. During the Jay Bilas interview, they were discussing the Wisconsin/UNC game. The graphics below said "UNC - 26 Sweet Sixteen appearances (most all-time)." First of all, they've shortchanged the Tar Heels. UNC actually has appeared in the Sweet Sixteen 31 times. Even worse, Kentucky has made 41 Sweet Sixteen appearances, 10 more than UNC. It's not even close.

I know it's silly to complain about this kind of stuff, but why is it so hard for ESPN, a network whose sole purpose is to provide sports-related information and coverage, to CHECK their stats. It takes very little effort. More important, though, fact-checking is a prerequisite to being considered a reliable news source.

What about you guys? Have you seen other ESPN mistakes that are so obviously incorrect that there's no reasonable explanation for the producers to have missed them?

Pretty sure they were talking about when we play in the NCAA tourney on being in the sweet 16 5 times in a row. When your not in the tourney its hard to not be in the sweet 16.

This. UK has made it to the Sweet 16 in 5 straight tournament appearances since Cal has been here.

 

[silverado]

On the ESPN website WVU page, they show a record of 7 WVU losses in the Big 12...but when you look at the schedule, they had 8 Big 12 losses.

 

[Neue Regel]

AL Featherston was writing about this earlier in the week. Here is a snippet from his column:




One of the problems is the NCAA's definition of the Sweet 16. Everybody understands that the Sweet 16 refers to the regional semifinals - the round of eight games that determine the Elite Eight. But once upon a time, the NCAA Tournament included less than 16 teams … and for almost two decades after it first expanded, it was less than 32 teams - meaning that some teams started their tournament journey already in the Sweet 16.

The NCAA decided, in its wisdom, to only count teams that had to win their way into the final 16 as Sweet 16 participants."
This post was edited on 3/26 5:12 PM by Neue Regel