- air
- ajax
- algorithm
- apple
- bitbucket
- braintapper_exchange
- charts
- chumby
- codeigniter
- cognos
- complexity
- crosstab
- dash
- dashboard
- date
- dbvisualizer
- decisions
- dimension
- dogfood
- dona_wong
- edward_tufte
- feature_checklists
- feature_excellence
- filemaker
- firefox
- firewall
- flot
- flowing_data
- fogbugz
- football
- free
- freenas
- freshbooks
- gm
- google_charts
- iPad
- javascript
- jdbc
- jedox
- mac
- macbook
- maps
- marsedit
- mercurial
- metaweblog
- metrics
- microstrategy
- monowall
- moo
- nathan_yau
- open_source
- palo
- pentaho
- pfsense
- printing
- programmers_interfaces
- rapidweaver
- regex
- regexr
- rest
- smoothwall
- sony
- sqlpower
- stackoverflow
- statistics
- stephen_few
- svg
- tablet
- ticket_agent
- tip
- tm1
- transformer
- trick
- typographic grid
- usability
- visualization
- w3c
- web
- wiki
- wikkawiki
- work_management
- wsj
What?
Ok, I'm not a football fan, but I'm also not totally deaf when it comes to the news.
A couple of nights ago, famed New England Patriots coach made a decision that cost the Patriots their game.
Steve D. Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, wrote an interesting analysis of why the decision that Belichick made was a good decision, fans be damned.
As anyone in the business intelligence field can tell you, decisions can be made on hope, or on facts. You can get great or catastrophic results using either method.
Levitt puts forward some evidence that supports the game-losing move. According to Levitt, Belichick's decision showed that:
1) he understands the data, and 2) he cares more about winning than anything else.
Moral: A losing decision based on facts doesn't make it a bad decision.
