Jump to content

Edman85

Where did Henning Get this?

Recommended Posts

I've already backed off of the stealing thing. I tried to change the name of the thread shortly thereafter, but it wasn't possible. I never meant to accuse in that regard, just got caught up in some of the rage right after reading the story. Considering nobody in memory has been able to accurately estimate Free Agent Types in the media, I think it's pretty clear that had to come from somewhere, and there is nobody else that has done this work... anywhere, not even some of the most dedicated sabermetric sites.

I'm beginning to think that a) You don't understand what the Elias Rankings are used for b) How complex and secret the formula is and c) The amount of work that went into working back and releasing these Rankings. This isn't like spending a half hour figuring out tiebreakers and NFL playoff scenarios, for example.

I'm not upset that they were used. I do realize that they were posted for free. I'm upset that they were presented as facts without even hinting that he got it from somewhere else, because frankly, he did. If you understood the context of what was going on, you would understand that is proof enough.

A) I understand what they are used for. Earlier today I was reading up on them. And I know you have been graciously appreciative from those who helped you with the formula. I saw on a post from 2007 (I think it was) where you thanked someone for helping you with this equation.

B) I think it's very apparent how secretive the rankings are. The gaming world may not be as important to you, but believe me there are a ton of people that would consider game formulas as the Holly grail to saving themselves tons of money so they could make their own cards for sports games. And I know how fun it is to try to "break those codes" or at least come darn close - as it looks like you have. That creates passion, but I don't know how this changes what happened here today.

C) I know work for something you are passionate about. Believe me. I am now making a NASCAR game (I picked NASCAR because it is a niche sport that has no or few games), that I plan on selling. I have distributed cards for seasons for playtesting. I have had people playtesting it for about a year - and all of this to maybe sell 20 games a year? I know hard work. I know how it is to do it for little reward (except for personal satisfaction which is the ultimate reward). And if one of my playtesters "stole" my formula and started distributing cards, I'd be ticked off too. But before making the allegations, I'd certainly have my facts straight. While I know of no one making a NASCAR game right now, I know it's been discussed by others and I could see someone making a game that is similar to mine - even without any knowledge of my game. And that seems like it could be nearly impossible since the sports gaming community has about three lifeblood areas it exists on the internet.

Heck, I was working on College softball as well - another niche gaming sport. And had over 100 teams completed a from a season a few years ago. One day I will get back at that as well. So I know passion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, why would Henning need to develop his own opinion about free agent status when he knows full well that Morosi wrote an article about Edman's method a couple of weeks ago? Do you really think he spent three hours on baseball-reference making a guess when the info is already right there for him? And if for some reason he didn't know about Edman's data and really did just give his own opinion, then shame on him for not knowing about something that Morosi recently featured.

I will agree that Edman should have asked him about it privately first and maybe we could have avoided this whole discussion. Beyond that though, your story doesn't sound right.

I spent about an hour looking at catchers today and the info was right there for me. I did it. I have done a ton of things like this even though I know things are out or will be out. I've given an example of a few today. I don't think it would be that out of the ordinary. Certainly not too far out of the ordinary to first ask the guy about it - especially when he's a baseball writer, a person that may be more suspect to do that or just make an educated guess in a column. Heck, look how passionate you are. I could see you doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody here contacted Henning? If not, I will.

I'd also offer up that I know certain people here critical of Henning's choice of words in this case work in fields related to numbers and statistics and things like that. I wonder if that's affecting how they use terms such as "likely". The newspaper is written for the general public that isn't into mathematics and statistical analysis. It just seems obvious to me that he was making an educated guess.

As I said way back in the beginning, if Gallup predicts Candidate X win an election and I say "Candidate X likely will win" should I credit Gallup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said way back in the beginning, if Gallup predicts Candidate X win an election and I say "Candidate X likely will win" should I credit Gallup?

If the Gallup poll is the reason you think it's likely, then yes. If it's just your own opinion and you are writing a column then I would expect to see a reason why you think it's likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not in my world.

Okay. But in my world, if I say something will happen, I'm saying I know it for a fact.

If I say it probably will happen, I'm saying I think it will happen, but I don't know for sure. In other words, it's an educated guess.

If I tell you, "the Celtics will probably repeat as champions," what I'm saying is, based on the knowledge I have about the Boston team, the NBA, etc. then I'm guessing that the Celtics will repeat.

It's tacitly understood, I would think, that by saying they "probably" will repeat, I'm not saying it's a fact it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When reading a paper for the average individual you may have to use the definitions used by the average individual. And how you can call his work not an opinion I'm lost. And now we're judging a man based on if he was a Baseball Prospectus writer - not judging the man that actually accused him of taking his work.

People have changed the premise of this thread long enough. A man wrote something. Another man automatically accused him of stealing his work without any evidence whatsoever. And now it's Henning that has to prove how much he knows about baseball, if something is an opinion, what Edman's blog actually represents and all sorts of other stuff. None of this crap matters yet I've pacified people all day with responses to these issues that don't even matter. Maybe we should get to what is at the core of the thread. PROVE he stole it. If you can't then this should end right now. If you are going to attack him with the allegations then do so by contacting him. If you don't like his response then do what you want. If he doesn't respond, email him again and tell him what the reprecussions of his actions may be if he doesn't respond the second time. Then after that make a decision.

What this comes down to is one person doing a lot of great work. I don't question that one bit. But now he thinks no one can have an opinion of their own on the subject because of his work. All opinions must be based on his work. And because this is how he feels he has made a post and a blog "ratting the guy out." Yet he has no proof beyond what he feels in his heart. And he hasn't tried to get any of that proof. He didn't email the guy (although the guy has a history of responding to emails) before creating the allegations. And even if he did now, the path taken doesn't justify the means. In short, he's shown his lack of professionalism. And yet many great posters here are supporting these actions despite there being no proof?!?

How can you see it any other way. I think a few of our most respected posters made some of their silliest posts they've ever made on this forum today. That's my opinion.

What that guy said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Gallup poll is the reason you think it's likely, then yes. If it's just your own opinion and you are writing a column then I would expect to see a reason why you think it's likely.

Okay -- what if your opinion is based on Gallup, your own observations, things you've heard co-workers say, and the fact that your wife plans to vote for Candidate X?

As much disrespect as Mr. Henning gets around here, he has actually covered baseball for a number of years, and he's picked up a number of informed contacts along the way. People email him all the time with their opinions. He works in a newsroom where he is surrounded by stat geeks. And -- surprisingly enough -- the sports department talks a lot about...sports.

So maybe Henning based his opinion on a number of factors -- and maybe even part of his opinion may have been from reading Edman's blog.

Should he have written, "Based on baseball conversations with coworkers and friends, emails from informed sources, Edman's blog, and the fact that my wife thinks Jason Varitek is cute, he probably will be a Type B Free Agent"?

Or should he just say, "he's probably a Type B Free Agent"? In his business, you write tight. Have you seen the size of the newspaper lately? It's shrank twice in the past 5 years (saves on newsprint costs). It's like reading a Bazooka Joe cartoon.

There's no room for columnists to explain the methodology in formulating their opinions. And most readers wouldn't care anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. But in my world, if I say something will happen, I'm saying I know it for a fact.

If I say it probably will happen, I'm saying I think it will happen, but I don't know for sure. In other words, it's an educated guess.

If I tell you, "the Celtics will probably repeat as champions," what I'm saying is, based on the knowledge I have about the Boston team, the NBA, etc. then I'm guessing that the Celtics will repeat.

It's tacitly understood, I would think, that by saying they "probably" will repeat, I'm not saying it's a fact it will happen.

That's about the same definition I'd use except that probably is more certain (not 100% certain) than guess.

Now, why does he think Furcal is probably not a type B free agent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's about the same definition I'd use except that probably is more certain (not 100% certain) than guess.

Now, why does he think Furcal is probably not a type B free agent?

Hell if I know! Don't ask me -- ask Lynn Henning! :happy:

It's not like Henning wrote the number 453433094578230, which turned out to be the exact same as Edman's proprietary number. This wasn't a case where he wrote five paragraphs that were word-for-word as another writer's work.

How many classes of FA are there, anyway? A, B, C? Why is it so difficult to think Henning may have made educated guesses about which categories a few players fall into that happen to jibe with what Edman found?

Does Henning have a history of stealing stuff from other people that would cause folks to reach for that option first? If so, I'm not aware of it.

I just don't see the big deal here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many classes of FA are there, anyway? A, B, C? Why is it so difficult to think Henning may have made educated guesses about which categories a few players fall into that happen to jibe with what Edman found?

I don't think he made educated guesses because he knows that Morosi wrote an article about Edman's method a couple of weeks ago. Thus he knew where to get the info and I doubt he would spend a lot of time trying figure it out himself independently. You said yourself that writers need to get these articles done quickly.

I don't think really think Henning "ripped off" Edman. I think maybe newspapers are not as good at citing sources as I would like. It seems sloppy to me. It's also possible that he did mention his source but the editor cut it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay -- what if your opinion is based on Gallup, your own observations, things you've heard co-workers say, and the fact that your wife plans to vote for Candidate X?

As much disrespect as Mr. Henning gets around here, he has actually covered baseball for a number of years, and he's picked up a number of informed contacts along the way. People email him all the time with their opinions. He works in a newsroom where he is surrounded by stat geeks. And -- surprisingly enough -- the sports department talks a lot about...sports.

So maybe Henning based his opinion on a number of factors -- and maybe even part of his opinion may have been from reading Edman's blog.

Should he have written, "Based on baseball conversations with coworkers and friends, emails from informed sources, Edman's blog, and the fact that my wife thinks Jason Varitek is cute, he probably will be a Type B Free Agent"?

Or should he just say, "he's probably a Type B Free Agent"? In his business, you write tight. Have you seen the size of the newspaper lately? It's shrank twice in the past 5 years (saves on newsprint costs). It's like reading a Bazooka Joe cartoon.

There's no room for columnists to explain the methodology in formulating their opinions. And most readers wouldn't care anyway.

Ty, Frankly he's a hack. His opinions relative to his job are weak, his research weaker. Plus he has the resources (interns) and paid assistants to improve his data quality. In THIS room he is mocked because in THIS room, we know the difference. We know the data, the players the scouting reports, who really can play, who is a real prospect and who is a fraud.

We mock Henning because it wouldn't take much to upgrade his work product, yet he continues to write the same poorly thought out, poorly researched garbage every year, are Lowe, Morosi, Hawkins and other beat writers criticized like Henning is on the this site..my belief is NO. Henning deserves the heat because frankly, he's just not good.

As it applies to Eddie being ripped off, cmon..MLBTR has quoted him numerous times and I am sure Henning frequents that site and if he doesn't (what does that say about a baseball journalist that doesn't) his researchers do..they know Eddie work and Henning knows Eddie is local.

So make all the reasonable excuses for the guy you want..it was classless, but after reading him for all these years, taking shortcuts and taking the easy way out..seems like his MO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He definitely jacked Edman's insanely devoted and hard word and it's a joke. It's PAINFULLY obvious...BUT

At least he didn't do it in a question and answer format!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ty, Frankly he's a hack. His opinions relative to his job are weak, his research weaker. Plus he has the resources (interns) and paid assistants to improve his data quality. In THIS room he is mocked because in THIS room, we know the difference. We know the data, the players the scouting reports, who really can play, who is a real prospect and who is a fraud.

Sorry, but this sounds pretty arrogant. Henning isn't one of my favorite columnists either. If you want to call him a hack, that's your opinion and I won't argue with you. But to say "we on this board know who is a real prospect and who is a fraud" cracks me up.

Not even highly-trained scouts know that for sure; where was Mike Piazza drafted again? How many draft/trade/FA mistakes are made each season by highly-trained professionals?

We mock Henning because it wouldn't take much to upgrade his work product, yet he continues to write the same poorly thought out, poorly researched garbage every year, are Lowe, Morosi, Hawkins and other beat writers criticized like Henning is on the this site..my belief is NO. Henning deserves the heat because frankly, he's just not good.

Fair enough. You don't think he's good. But to accuse him of stealing someone else's work with no proof whatsoever other is another thing altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. But in my world, if I say something will happen, I'm saying I know it for a fact.

If I say it probably will happen, I'm saying I think it will happen, but I don't know for sure. In other words, it's an educated guess.

If I tell you, "the Celtics will probably repeat as champions," what I'm saying is, based on the knowledge I have about the Boston team, the NBA, etc. then I'm guessing that the Celtics will repeat.

It's tacitly understood, I would think, that by saying they "probably" will repeat, I'm not saying it's a fact it will happen.

My problem with this sentiment, and the Henning article, is that there are other words than "probably" and "likely" that could be used to indicate uncertainty that are better, IMO, at qualifying the statement as an opinion.

To me, and perhaps only to me, when I read 'probably' or 'likely', I think the point being discussed is either obvious or is understood well enough by the writer to form a strong opinion. As suggested by myself before, if it is purely opinion / speculation based at looking at the available Free Agents and making an educated guess, I personally would advocate using, 'I suspect player X will be ....' rather than 'Player X will likely be....'.

Yes, it is a subtle difference. A very subtle difference. And perhaps I am more focused on this type of detail because it is expected in technical papers (i.e. these sort of word choices help let the reader know how well supported an opinion is). But to me, Henning's article reads stronger than just opinion. In other words, I think his statements imply he has something backing up his statements stronger than opinion.

That is my primary criticism of the whole thing - if he used data from a different source, he could have indicated that. If the article is just his opinion, then unless it is a well supported one, 'likely' or 'probably' aren't the best word choices, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. You don't think he's good. But to accuse him of stealing someone else's work with no proof whatsoever other is another thing altogether.

You have to prove to me that he didn't steal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't accuse Henning of stealing. My issue was that he didn't attribute the work to Eddie, which if he didn't get there so be it. Stealing would be if he took Eddie's lists and values and posted them as if he came up with them on his own. In this case - IN MY OPINION - he used information from Eddie's site to draw his conclusions and in the final print edition there was no attribution. That's my beef. But I've since been informed that newspapers don't attribute stuff because of space issues and the fact that nobody cares so I guess it's a pointless argument.

I don't think Henning is a bad dude or a thief. He's always been very responsive to emails, even ones where I disagreed with him and he wrote a lovely piece about Brian. I've defended him here numerous times and given him credit for writing the best game stories of any of the beat writers so there is no bias or vendetta on my part.

I also think he misses on some details that are pretty obvious and it undermines the conclusions he draws. If anything the best piece of evidence that he didn't use anything from Eddie is the fact that Eddie highlighted the free agents, and Glover wasn't one of them (because he only has 5 years of service time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to prove to me that he didn't steal.

Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Has anyone emailed him yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has to explain how he got that info. The Cesar Izturis one is a dead giveaway. The onus is on him to explain himself, not Eddie.

Henning's journalistic credibility is in question here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What info? There's no factual info to get, unless Elias already told him. Maybe he guessed? Maybe he has his own formula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has to explain how he got that info. The Cesar Izturis one is a dead giveaway. The onus is on him to explain himself, not Eddie.

So has anyone asked him for an explanation?

I'm with Dave on at least one point: the accusations are rampant in here... and noone has even bothered to talk to the man (by email or whatever...). Specifically, Ed hasn't bothered to do so.

And despite the strong probability Henning may have used Ed's work without citing it (95% ... ?) he is STILL innocent until proven guilty, and STILL noone has even spoken to him to get his side.

Innocent until proven guilty. I don't care where the onus is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure it's been asked yet, but has anyone emailed him yet?

It's been asked at LEAST half a dozen times already... LesGoBlue(in 2011... :grin:), you are lucky #7!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been asked at LEAST half a dozen times already... LesGoBlue(in 2011... :grin:), you are lucky #7!!!

I know man. I just didn't feel like going "Advanced" to add the smiley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told someone in the hallway that it's likely to hit 60 degrees or more today. Am I supposed to credit the weatherman on Fox 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So has anyone asked him for an explanation?

I'm with Dave on at least one point: the accusations are rampant in here... and noone has even bothered to talk to the man (by email or whatever...). Specifically, Ed hasn't bothered to do so.

And despite the strong probability Henning may have used Ed's work without citing it (95% ... ?) he is STILL innocent until proven guilty, and STILL noone has even spoken to him to get his side.

Innocent until proven guilty. I don't care where the onus is.

Guilty of what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,450
    • Total Posts
      2,876,408
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...