The difference between Lowe and Barnwell is that Lowe comes in without any preconceived notions, and almost every strong-ish statement he makes about a player or team he follows with some sort of caveat or clarification.
Barnwell on the other hand seems to cherry pick the metrics to support his hypothesis, attributing certain things to luck in some places and not in others (a lot of which tends to be driven by the picks/predictions he makes early in the season). A lot of times he'll just go against popular opinion, even if his devil's advocate position isn't particularly supported by data. His column on the Patriots-Panthers game in particular was an example of this:
Huh? That sounds like something you'd hear on a pre-game show, not from a guy who is presented as an analytical thinker.
He also either doesn't seem to have a full grasp on win probability or intentionally used really misleading numbers to prove his point.
Barnwell on the other hand seems to cherry pick the metrics to support his hypothesis, attributing certain things to luck in some places and not in others (a lot of which tends to be driven by the picks/predictions he makes early in the season). A lot of times he'll just go against popular opinion, even if his devil's advocate position isn't particularly supported by data. His column on the Patriots-Panthers game in particular was an example of this:
But given how New England played with the game on the line, it deserved to lose, regardless of how that final call shook out.
Huh? That sounds like something you'd hear on a pre-game show, not from a guy who is presented as an analytical thinker.
He also either doesn't seem to have a full grasp on win probability or intentionally used really misleading numbers to prove his point.