Infiltrated by liberals
My favorite critique of my article from Shark974:
Translation: Deadspin is shit and biased and wants to ban the NFL. Nothing more.
Sorry but you know it’s true. Studies these days are worth the paper they’re printed on, having been infiltrated by liberals (probably a few forests have been sacrificed printing fake global warming studies by liberals).
Also, you go through all that trouble to “prove”, drum roll please, baseball players are “no more likely” to die than FB players.
Hmm, given the notion out there that FB is a deathsport or something, I’d call that alone a big win for the NFL. The way Deadspin chose to spin and headline this article says a lot about their obvious bias. I suspect the author votes for Democrats, as well (liberals are much more likely to be both illogical and extremely biased in conducting studies).
But dont worry, we’ve got liberals on the case, I am sure plenty of fake lies, I mean, scientific studies, are coming soon that prove playing in the NFL rapes your dog and gives you cancer, to be shouted from the rooftops everywhere by the liberal media. Again, look to the global warming precedent.
The more I read this, the more I appreciate what a work of are it really is.
Posted on September 6, 2012, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.
That comment was absurd, obviously. But the general point (minus the politics) is valid. The news here is that football players were assumed to have higher death rates than baseball players, whereas the data says they don’t (at least when the data is looked at crudely). The best actual comment from Deadspin was the one that pointed out that MLB and NFL have vastly different racial/nationality profiles, with half of MLB being Hispanic and a high pct. of NFLer being African-American. If you’re attempting to be serious about a study comparing death rates of two populations (and it appears you are), it’s critical to either assume that the two populations are very similar in all but the variable being tested, or to adjust for different risk profiles of each population.
Thanks for the comment. All I was trying to demonstrate was one of the problems with comparing mortality rates between two groups, which I believe I did. As I demonstrate, I found no evidence that there was any difference in the mortality rates of the two groups, but that is different than asking the question “Does on group live longer than the other.” To study that, one could use proportional hazards modeling.