Peter King screws up

Didn't one of the recent video games (like Madden '0-something) rank all the players once? I remember ESPN.com had a column interviewing the worst player, according to the game.

That to me is more interesting than just a list of the top 500.

 

Actually I think that was Reilly's SI column a few weeks ago, where he talked to the worst guy, and others who were ranked low.

 

Yes, Mr. King does look a little sloppy, but it seems like something that could have been caught by a fact-checker -- or don't they have those at S.I. anymore?

 

These mistakes are silly, but they don't bother me all that much.

Though I would care more if I gave a damn about SI's top 500. I thought the overall issue was terrible. I just started up a subscription pretty much out of boredom and the second issue I get is nothing but a huge boring list.

Only read two of the team previews and gave up because I didn't they were very good.

 

I think the 500th best NFL football player is still pretty damn good.

 

Everyone ranks things. Fortune 500, anyone?

 

i laughed

 

I found the other corrections on the same page more disturbing:

SI's prediction for the Pac-10's in-conference record was a cumulative 41-49. And for the Big 12, it was 47-49.

 

You have WAY too much time on your hands.

 

When Fortune puts Marriott at both #203 and #459, you can compare the two.

And, yes, Landry at 200 spots apart destroys the credibility of the entire list. You guys should know by now it only takes the slightest error to ruin your credibility in this biz. Not saying PK's credibility is destroyed by this, but the list's credibility certainly is.

 

Apparently SI's fact checkers do not.

 

Seems like if you're going to do 500 of anything, someone (ie the writer) should be thinking 'better check to make sure we didn't repeat.'

Once is an easy mistake...three times is just shoddy.