Jump to content

Edman85

Where did Henning Get this?

Recommended Posts

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?

Are you publishing an article?

Ignoring that, I generally say 'I heard it is going to be 60' rather than 'it is likely to be 60', but that is just me, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again: There's a possibility that Henning did look at Edman's site in formulating his opinion, and there's just as equal a possibility that his opinion was bolstered by conversations with other stat-geeks and sources.

This was an opinion column, not a database story where the writer is compelled to lay out the methodology behind his conclusions.

If a reporter writes, "Kwame Kilpatrick broke the law," then, yeah, I expect some facts backing that statement up.

But if an opinion columnist writes "Jason Varitek is likely a Type A free agent, and the Tigers should sign him" that's good enough for me. I don't care what websites he visited to arrive at that opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again: There's a possibility that Henning did look at Edman's site in formulating his opinion, and there's just as equal a possibility that his opinion was bolstered by conversations with other stat-geeks and sources.

This was an opinion column, not a database story where the writer is compelled to lay out the methodology behind his conclusions.

If a reporter writes, "Kwame Kilpatrick broke the law," then, yeah, I expect some facts backing that statement up.

But if an opinion columnist writes "Jason Varitek is likely a Type A free agent, and the Tigers should sign him" that's good enough for me. I don't care what websites he visited to arrive at that opinion.

But why is Varitek "likely a Type A"? What basis is he using to draw this conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But why is Varitek "likely a Type A"? What basis is he using to draw this conclusion?

Once again: Maybe it was conversations with friends and coworkers, trusted baseball sourced, Edman's website and emails he's received from baseball fans.

I say again: If this was a proprietary, unique entity, like the number 030229294730923, or a verbatim cut-and-paste job of the exact words that appeared on a website, that would be one thing.

But there are only three categories to choose from here: A, B or C.

I'm going to take a stab, with no research whatsoever, and say that Derek Lowe is a Type A free agent. If that happens to jibe with Edman's findings, does that mean I ripped him off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again: Maybe it was conversations with friends and coworkers, trusted baseball sourced, Edman's website and emails he's received from baseball fans.

I say again: If this was a proprietary, unique entity, like the number 030229294730923, or a verbatim cut-and-paste job of the exact words that appeared on a website, that would be one thing.

But there are only three categories to choose from here: A, B or C.

I'm going to take a stab, with no research whatsoever, and say that Derek Lowe is a Type A free agent. If that happens to jibe with Edman's findings, does that mean I ripped him off?

Fine - you took a stab at Lowe being a Type A free agent. Given that, would you write he is likely to be a Type A free agent or would you write you suspect he will be a Type A free agent?

Maybe I am missing it and being way to anal about this, but in such an instance I personally would write I suspect he will be a Type A free agent.

Likely indicates a a better than 50% probability or likelihood of something happening. If I didn't study or understand a given issue well, I know I wouldn't feel comfortable suggesting something was likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you publishing an article?

Ignoring that, I generally say 'I heard it is going to be 60' rather than 'it is likely to be 60', but that is just me, I suppose.

Perfect analogy:

I'm writing an opinion column about the great fall hiking in Michigan. I write in my column, "It's likely to be 60 or lower all week, so be sure to bring your coats."

I didn't commit a sin by not saying "it's likely to be 60 or lower all week according to the National Weather Service, so be sure to bring your coats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfect analogy:

I'm writing an opinion column about the great fall hiking in Michigan. I write in my column, "It's likely to be 60 or lower all week, so be sure to bring your coats."

I didn't commit a sin by not saying "it's likely to be 60 or lower all week according to the National Weather Service, so be sure to bring your coats."

For at least the third or fourth time...

I consider the use of likely to be acceptable if the matter being written about is commonly accepted fact (as in Al Kaline is probably the best RF in Tigers history / it's likely to be 60 or under in the fall in Michigan) or if the matter is well understood by the writer. I do not believe the Free Agent classification of Jason Veritek or Cesar Izturis is a commonly accepted fact for Henning's readers, so the use of likely suggests, in my mind, that Henning has studied and understands the issue well enough to state the probabilities favor whatever he claimed.

Secondly, nobody is suggesting that a large, cumbersome qualification like the one you propose regarding the Weather Service be used. It can be as simple as writing 'based on the analyses I've read, Jason Veritek is likely to be..., Cesar Izturis is ...'. It simply is a way for the reader to know whether it is his analysis or not that led to his conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfect analogy:

I'm writing an opinion column about the great fall hiking in Michigan. I write in my column, "It's likely to be 60 or lower all week, so be sure to bring your coats."

I didn't commit a sin by not saying "it's likely to be 60 or lower all week according to the National Weather Service, so be sure to bring your coats."

Everybody hears weather reports so the readers know his source. Readers don't read Henning to get weather reports. A better example would be if Henning says: "Zumaya is likely to be healthy next spring and be the Tigers set up man". In that case, I would expect him to tell me why he thinks Zumaya is likely to be healthy next spring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, nobody is suggesting that a large, cumbersome qualification like the one you propose regarding the Weather Service be used. It can be as simple as writing 'based on the analyses I've read, Jason Veritek is likely to be..., Cesar Izturis is ...'. It simply is a way for the reader to know whether it is his analysis or not that led to his conclusion.

Yes, that would be an acceptable way to say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Tyrus for the first time.

A newspaper column has limited space. I don't think most newspaper columnists cite their sources for this reason, and also because people generally don't like to read things with sources mentioned throughout. Regardless of where he got his information, it does not appear to be common practice to tell the reader where information came from. The reader assumes that a statement made with a factual lean ceoms from somewhere, but they are not interested. If the fact is questioned, either because it isn't true or the columnist made a mistake, the columnist can obviously respond. But a newspaper article is not the same thing as a technical journal article.

I understand that Ed put a lot of work into figuring out the Elias formula. He has received multiple mentions around the internet and was interviewed by Morosi for it. All of the mentions were well deserved. But I don't think that means that everyone who uses that info is under an obligation to credit him every time they use it. For example, the guys at fire joe morgan don't always refer to baseball prospectus when they use WARP or EqA.

I think all the talk over opinion/fact/actual source misses the point. If you create something and distribute it to the public free of charge, people are going to use it and refer to it. And the standard practice of newspaper writing in such a situation is to leave out the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all the talk over opinion/fact/actual source misses the point.

Actually, I think it's a big point. Henning has a habit of writing his opinion columns as if they are factual. We've had this discussion several times. It's his style and it's kind of cute but it also can be confusing at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfect analogy:

I'm writing an opinion column about the great fall hiking in Michigan. I write in my column, "It's likely to be 60 or lower all week, so be sure to bring your coats."

I didn't commit a sin by not saying "it's likely to be 60 or lower all week according to the National Weather Service, so be sure to bring your coats."

Sorry, I don't see that being "perfect" at all...

You can find the projected weather forecast in a vast variety of places, it's almost common knowledge, so citing a source would not be necessary.

Ed reverse-engineered what seems to be a very complicated and complex formula that could predict who is a Type A or Type B Free Agent, as aforementioned you can't just readily find such a list (to my knowledge there is only Ed's) so in this instance your analogy is completely wrong.

Sure Henning could have used his "own formula" or simply made a guess but again, like others have said, if that was the case he should've put some disclaimer saying "Based on my calculations I believe..." or something to that extent.

Citing a source in only required (at least in academia) when you take someone else's ideas or work and include them in your writing. It is widely known that it is not mandatory to cite things that are "common knowledge" (like the weather or batting average), but in this instance where there is seemingly only one list of projected Elias rankings (and a highly publicized one at that) it makes sense for Henning to cite the source or at the very least not pass it off as his own. And if it was just his educated guess or through his own independent research, Henning should have made that clear in the article as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I think it's a big point. Henning has a habit of writing his opinion columns as if they are factual. We've had this discussion several times. It's his style and it's kind of cute but it also can be confusing at times.

But that wasn't the premise of this thread. I don't particularly like Henning's style either, and I agree that he sometimes uses confusing language, but the outrage over using Edman's projections without attribution seems to have been the point of this thread. Perhaps it changed, but I haven't been keeping up that closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone still think that Henning didn't use Ed's projections? I initially thought it was possible, but after thinking about it some more I'm pretty sure he did. If that's the case, I don't have any issues with the way he worded the article. I also don't have issues with citing his source, for the reasons mentioned above. But I also understand the disappointment in not being mentioned after putting in the effort. I just don't think it is common practice to do so, so I don't think Henning did anything wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I also understand the disappointment in not being mentioned after putting in the effort. I just don't think it is common practice to do so, so I don't think Henning did anything wrong.

I think you're right: Disappointment is driving this. I think Edman's head got turned a little by the MSM attention given to his blog, and now he's miffed because another media member didn't do the same.

I could be wrong -- this is only a GUESS -- but I'm betting if Morosi never wrote his article, Edman doesn't get so mad about Henning's piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really quick, because it's come up in this thread. Gary Glover is now a free agent after refusing his assignment. Even if he was Type A or B, the Tigers wouldn't get compensation though, because he didn't file through the normal channels.

For the record, I was only briefly upset about any potential "ripping off," but the confusing of opinion and fact is indeed troublesome, especially when the primary premise of the article (regarding trading Ordonez) made national news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had another thought. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not.

Is it possible that Henning got this information from someone in the Tigers front office. That would support the Gary Glover free agent thing. That would also support his statements of "likely type A." I'm pretty sure that as the Elias formula was part of collective bargaining, that the teams know what it is. That's probably a big issue when making trades or planning for free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just had another thought. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not.

Is it possible that Henning got this information from someone in the Tigers front office. That would support the Gary Glover free agent thing. That would also support his statements of "likely type A." I'm pretty sure that as the Elias formula was part of collective bargaining, that the teams know what it is. That's probably a big issue when making trades or planning for free agency.

He's still wrong about Glover. As an outright free agent, the Tigers are not entitled to compensation if he would have been Type A or B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's still wrong about Glover. As an outright free agent, the Tigers are not entitled to compensation if he would have been Type A or B.

But he's not type a or b. Either way, the Tigers won't get any compensation. Maybe that is all Henning heard.

Where else would Henning have heard Glover was a free agent? I'm just saying it was possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really quick, because it's come up in this thread. Gary Glover is now a free agent after refusing his assignment. Even if he was Type A or B, the Tigers wouldn't get compensation though, because he didn't file through the normal channels.

Who is Gary Glover? :happy:

Sorry...just trying to lighten things up a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just had another thought. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not.

Is it possible that Henning got this information from someone in the Tigers front office. That would support the Gary Glover free agent thing. That would also support his statements of "likely type A." I'm pretty sure that as the Elias formula was part of collective bargaining, that the teams know what it is. That's probably a big issue when making trades or planning for free agency.

It's possible but why would need to use the word "likely" if he got it from the front office. In that case, he could just say he "is" a type A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyrus, since you work for the News, and have said so here so I'm not really outing you, do you know of any policy or standards where they don't like to credit outside sources? I'm just curious because I notice John Lowe's always crediting Retrosheet.org whenever he writes about something happening in a game for the first time in awhile. And Morosi wrote that column a few weeks ago about Edman's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's possible but why would need to use the word "likely" if he got it from the front office. In that case, he could just say he "is" a type A.

Because the front office can't say for sure until the list is released? Maybe they use an imperfect algorithm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyrus, since you work for the News, and have said so here so I'm not really outing you, do you know of any policy or standards where they don't like to credit outside sources? I'm just curious because I notice John Lowe's always crediting Retrosheet.org whenever he writes about something happening in a game for the first time in awhile. And Morosi wrote that column a few weeks ago about Edman's work.

Retrosheet.org specifically requests that you cite them if you use their databases. They have a disclaimer on their site. I'm not sure if they require citation if you just use their site and not the database.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...