Confirmation bias is defined, roughly, as interpreting events in such a way that they conform to your preconceived prejudices about a topic. One example would be remembering every time Derek Jeter came through at a key moment, and likewise when Alex Rodriguez did not succeed in such situations. You’ve, probably, already prejudged the players; one is “clutch” (whatever that means), and one is not. When Jeter fails to come through, and Rodriguez blasts a three run shot to the upper deck, those instances are attributed to luck or some other situational factor that can be explained away. When they meet your expectations? That’s strictly owing to their instrinsic fortitudes. Jeter is a gamer. A-Rod is a choke artist. That’s what the tabloid backpages and talk radio say.
I tend to fall toward the A-Rod side of those kinds of debates. That’s the way I try to approach any questions I have, whether in sports or other fields of inquiry; is it possible that my set assumptions could be wrong? Can I be humble enough to look back and see if I erred at a point along the way?
That’s the qualifying disclaimer I want to preface the following few paragraphs, because: god damn, if it didn’t seem like opposing defenses were gleefully picking on Jason McCourty in 2008. I don’t want to pile on the guy too much, but McCourty figuratively did seem to have a target on his back for most of the 2008 season.
Football analysis can be a tricky thing. If you don’t have a background in coaching and scouting, and I do not, how exactly can you properly evaluate the complex relationships and inner workings that go on in the midst of every single play? One problem is that, when watching each play, most people have the tendency to follow the ball, and don’t really pay attention to line play. You only pay attention if an offensive linemen is putting up little to no resistance to opposing pass rushers, leading to a quarterback repeatedly hitting the turf.