Jump to content

Edman85

Where did Henning Get this?

Recommended Posts

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

Maybe the front office cracked Edman's algorithm :paranoid:

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.

I think the criteria is different for me, since I'm a beat reporter. The rules that apply to me are different than those that govern what an opinion columnist does.

I do know opinions by columnists are often forged by looking at any number of sites, and it would be impossible and unwieldy to cite them all.

You're right that Lowe often cites Retrosheet.org. A quick search revealed that Henning often cites Baseball Prospectus. So I guess each columnist has his favorite places to get info from.

That said, I'm certainly in no position to explain Henning's methodology, and I sure don't want to speak for him. I really don't know the guy that well...he seems like a cool dude in passing, and I've heard from people that he is a really nice person. But it's not like we're buddies or anything. If I see him today, though, I'll ask him about this.

My long-winded answer to your question is: I imagine The News' rules about citing sources is the same as any other paper's: Unles it's a situation where an unnamed source is handing you something, you should cite where you're getting your information from -- if you're indeed lifting that info from a particular source.

However, if an opinion was forged by several different sources, I don't think a columnist need to cite them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the criteria is different for me, since I'm a beat reporter. The rules that apply to me are different than those that govern what an opinion columnist does.

I do know opinions by columnists are often forged by looking at any number of sites, and it would be impossible and unwieldy to cite them all.

You're right that Lowe often cites Retrosheet.org. A quick search revealed that Henning often cites Baseball Prospectus. So I guess each columnist has his favorite places to get info from.

That said, I'm certainly in no position to explain Henning's methodology, and I sure don't want to speak for him. I really don't know the guy that well...he seems like a cool dude in passing, and I've heard from people that he is a really nice person. But it's not like we're buddies or anything. If I see him today, though, I'll ask him about this.

My long-winded answer to your question is: I imagine The News' rules about citing sources is the same as any other paper's: Unles it's a situation where an unnamed source is handing you something, you should cite where you're getting your information from -- if you're indeed lifting that info from a particular source.

However, if an opinion was forged by several different sources, I don't think a columnist need to cite them all.

Ty..let's use the word courtesy..what Henning looks down on bloggers..as for the comment on the boards ability to identify prospects..cmon..Ty..every prospect is a suspect..it's why they are called propsects, there not called sure things..but there is a difference between identfying Hayden Parrott a 3 year minor leaguer as a catcher..and calling for Chad Durbin to replace Kenny Rogers..and numerous other instances of Hennings meager knowledge of the Tiger minor league system. Defend your bretheren all you want, I respect that, but other writers are treated with more respect, because they deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ty..let's use the word courtesy..what Henning looks down on bloggers..as for the comment on the boards ability to identify prospects..cmon..Ty..every prospect is a suspect..it's why they are called propsects, there not called sure things..but there is a difference between identfying Hayden Parrott a 3 year minor leaguer as a catcher..and calling for Chad Durbin to replace Kenny Rogers..and numerous other instances of Hennings meager knowledge of the Tiger minor league system. Defend your bretheren all you want, I respect that, but other writers are treated with more respect, because they deserve it.

Lynn Henning does not look down on bloggers. He has always been friendly to them and open to new ideas, and has never once had a Murray Chass/Jon Heyman-esque outburst towards them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ty..let's use the word courtesy..what Henning looks down on bloggers..as for the comment on the boards ability to identify prospects..cmon..Ty..every prospect is a suspect..it's why they are called propsects, there not called sure things..but there is a difference between identfying Hayden Parrott a 3 year minor leaguer as a catcher..and calling for Chad Durbin to replace Kenny Rogers..and numerous other instances of Hennings meager knowledge of the Tiger minor league system. Defend your bretheren all you want, I respect that, but other writers are treated with more respect, because they deserve it.

I'm not defending Henning in this thread. All I'm saying is that it's unfair to accuse him of stealing without any proof. And, since Edman has backed off that accusation, there's really no reason to continue to beat this dead horse.

I'm not here to defend people I work with. I'm merely here giving my opinions as just another fan. Sometimes, my opinion is that a coworker wrote a crappy story. I'm not here as a representative of my paper, although in the past I have mentioned where I worked for various reasons (for instance, when soliciting a quote about a story I'm working on, or to share an experience with fellow fans that require I reveal where I work).

I'm merely here as another Tiger fan. Sometimes people I happen to work with will write something I think is stupid, and I'll say so. Sometimes, I think they're unfairly lambasted, and I'll say so.

In this particular instance, all I'm saying is it's not fair to say someone stole something based on circumstantial evidence.

If you don't like Lynn Henning as a baseball columnist, I've never once tried to dissuade that opinion. Why bother? Anything I say isn't going to change your mind anyway.

You think he's a hack. Fair enough. That's your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes, my opinion is that a coworker wrote a crappy story.

I believe the term is "Horse ****"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not defending Henning in this thread. All I'm saying is that it's unfair to accuse him of stealing without any proof. And, since Edman has backed off that accusation, there's really no reason to continue to beat this dead horse.

I'm not here to defend people I work with. I'm merely here giving my opinions as just another fan. Sometimes, my opinion is that a coworker wrote a crappy story. I'm not here as a representative of my paper, although in the past I have mentioned where I worked for various reasons (for instance, when soliciting a quote about a story I'm working on, or to share an experience with fellow fans that require I reveal where I work).

I'm merely here as another Tiger fan. Sometimes people I happen to work with will write something I think is stupid, and I'll say so. Sometimes, I think they're unfairly lambasted, and I'll say so.

In this particular instance, all I'm saying is it's not fair to say someone stole something based on circumstantial evidence.

If you don't like Lynn Henning as a baseball columnist, I've never once tried to dissuade that opinion. Why bother? Anything I say isn't going to change your mind anyway.

You think he's a hack. Fair enough. That's your opinion.

Fair enough..I respect your opinion and always have..I also respect your professionalism in the way you convey your views..we can agree to disagree..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lynn Henning does not look down on bloggers. He has always been friendly to them and open to new ideas, and has never once had a Murray Chass/Jon Heyman-esque outburst towards them.

I agree. I like Henning. I just think his writing style sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish between when he is just stating an opinion and when he has an actual source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not defending Henning in this thread. All I'm saying is that it's unfair to accuse him of stealing without any proof. And, since Edman has backed off that accusation, there's really no reason to continue to beat this dead horse.

I think the debate is not really about Edman anymore. I think some of the initial response to the story was out of loyalty to Edman and appreciation of his work. However, as the debate has gone on, other issues have come up about Henning's writing style and general newspaper practices around citations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough..I respect your opinion and always have..I also respect your professionalism in the way you convey your views..we can agree to disagree..

Thanks, bro...now GIMME A KISS:

UglywomanKiss.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a good thread, for the most part.

The only thing missing is Hennings perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am backing off anything I said about Edman yesterday. This got way too ridiculous and I can't believe how deep I got into this for something that didn't impact me and - to be honest - I initially didn't care that much about.

Edman,

If I offended you with any of my posts last night, I apologize. Not that I didn't believe much of what I said, but I probably took it to a greater extreme for some stupid reason and could've easily left my remarks to a couple posts. We are all human. We all make mistakes in judgment. It's probably fair to say I made a few yesterday in how harsh I was with some of those posts. And certainly even if I believed as harsh as I did yesterday, it's clear you have soften your viewpoint as well, so it makes no sense for me to uphold that opinion at such an extreme level.

--------------------

Now Cruzer is keeping that hard line. I may be willing to take a few jabs at him.

You are telling me in all of our top 100 lists in your blog, all the opinions you express are solely based on notes you created on personal observation? You must look at sites to help create opinions. Yet on those top 100 lists, I don't see one single attribution. Why is that the case? Or am I 100 percent wrong. You truly do have a video library of every players' games (I'd say you probably need about 5 games on each since most games don't isolate on a particular player), their combines and their practice sessions? My guess is you've used these sites to help create your opinions.

Your words here Cruzer....

"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."

It's up to you to prove where you got all that information. Our your credibility as a blogger is pretty much in issue.

Cruzer,

Until you prove otherwise you are 100 percent guilty.

Just putting you on the same standard you are trying to place others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee,

I also apologize for that "silly" post last night. I do sneak on your site upon occasion. You certainly attribute any information that I think most of us would consider beyond the normal information most of us have at our finger tips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too am backing off anything I said about Edman yesterday. This got way too ridiculous and I can't believe how deep I got into this for something that didn't impact me and - to be honest - I initially didn't care that much about.

Edman,

If I offended you with any of my posts last night, I apologize. Not that I didn't believe much of what I said, but I probably took it to a greater extreme for some stupid reason and could've easily left my remarks to a couple posts. We are all human. We all make mistakes in judgment. It's probably fair to say I made a few yesterday in how harsh I was with some of those posts. And certainly even if I believed as harsh as I did yesterday, it's clear you have soften your viewpoint as well, so it makes no sense for me to uphold that opinion at such an extreme level.

--------------------

Now Cruzer is keeping that hard line. I may be willing to take a few jabs at him.

You are telling me in all of our top 100 lists in your blog, all the opinions you express are solely based on notes you created on personal observation? You must look at sites to help create opinions. Yet on those top 100 lists, I don't see one single attribution. Why is that the case? Or am I 100 percent wrong. You truly do have a video library of every players' games (I'd say you probably need about 5 games on each since most games don't isolate on a particular player), their combines and their practice sessions? My guess is you've used these sites to help create your opinions.

Your words here Cruzer....

"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."

It's up to you to prove where you got all that information. Our your credibility as a blogger is pretty much in issue.

Cruzer,

Until you prove otherwise you are 100 percent guilty.

Just putting you on the same standard you are trying to place others.

I have attributed GBN and NFL Draft Countdown as a means of finding players who are eligible. My list is independant of theirs. I have links to them on my blog.

I watch games during the season just to see prospects. I didn't tape the UM/MSU game last week, I've already seen Javon Ringer, Terrance Taylor, Tim Jamison, and Morgan Trent, etc. many times. I place a great deal of emphasis on players at the Senior Bowl, and watch all of those practices; and also alot on the combine, and tape every session there. Too many teams in college football play a different style than the pros, so more and more emphasis is on the testing and projecting the players than before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruzer,

I see some links. Links are not attributions if you don't designate them as such. Without such designations, they are links - not attributions. I see Lee's blog listed. I'm sure if in a Tigers' article you used some of his research, you'd credit him in that article. I see none of that in each specific article that involves your top 100 NFL prospects.

For example

25. Brian Brohm, QB, Louisville- His injuries have hurt him, he was ranked higher last year. Them's the breaks, but he's still likely to start in the NFL.

Based on what position you've taken here shouldn't this say...

25. Brian Brohm, QB, Louisville- Based on information I've read from (blank) his injuries have hurt him, he was ranked higher last year. Them's the breaks, but he's still likely to start in the NFL.

This is attribution. Lee does that. He may have links, but when he finds it necessary he attributes sites - it doesn't appear that he allows a link on the side to do his attributing. People don't know what you got from other sources or created from various other sources - they don't know how specific opinions were formed. Based on your post I can have a link on the side, post detailed information from another blog/site and not mention where I got that work, because the links are generically on the right of your blog page. That's not attribution.

I'm not saying you need to do this what I did to that Brohm post of yours. It is your posts in this thread that suggest you need to do this. This is what I am trying to get across. Right now you aren't following the same standard you are demanding in this thread from Lynn - when his post could've very easily been an educated guess (and one that makes some probable sense by the way). And because this information is out there, even if you didn't necessarily get all this from those sites (I believe you have the information you stated), you need to attribute it to someone or risk being called a hacker or whatever. That's what you have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cruzer,

I see some links. Links are not attributions if you don't designate them as such. Without such designations, they are links - not attributions. I see Lee's blog listed. I'm sure if in a Tigers' article you used some of his research, you'd credit him in that article. I see none of that in each specific article that involves your top 100 NFL prospects.

For example

25. Brian Brohm, QB, Louisville- His injuries have hurt him, he was ranked higher last year. Them's the breaks, but he's still likely to start in the NFL.

Based on what position you've taken here shouldn't this say...

25. Brian Brohm, QB, Louisville- Based on information I've read from (blank) his injuries have hurt him, he was ranked higher last year. Them's the breaks, but he's still likely to start in the NFL.

This is attribution. Lee does that. He may have links, but when he finds it necessary he attributes sites - it doesn't appear that he allows a link on the side to do his attributing. People don't know what you got from other sources or created from various other sources - they don't know how specific opinions were formed. Based on your post I can have a link on the side, post detailed information from another blog/site and not mention where I got that work, because the links are generically on the right of your blog page. That's not attribution.

I'm not saying you need to do this what I did to that Brohm post of yours. It is your posts in this thread that suggest you need to do this. This is what I am trying to get across. Right now you aren't following the same standard you are demanding in this thread from Lynn - when his post could've very easily been an educated guess (and one that makes some probable sense by the way). And because this information is out there, even if you didn't necessarily get all this from those sites (I believe you have the information you stated), you need to attribute it to someone or risk being called a hacker or whatever. That's what you have done.

Links that are in the context of an article are absolutely attribution. It is showing the reader exactly where you got the information. Links in a sidebar wouldn't be, but if the material is linked where you use it that absolutely counts.

Back to the Henning example, if in the online edition the line "Varitek is probably a Type A" was a hyperlink to Eddie's site we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Which actually brings up another issue I have. I understand the space constraints in the print edition, but that doesn't hold in the online version. I'm not saying writers need to write two different articles, but stuff that gets cut for space in print doesn't need to get cut online. As for different information in the two spots? That happens now and online stories get updated and rewritten and reposted all the time. I don't see how this would be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which actually brings up another issue I have. I understand the space constraints in the print edition, but that doesn't hold in the online version. I'm not saying writers need to write two different articles, but stuff that gets cut for space in print doesn't need to get cut online. As for different information in the two spots? That happens now and online stories get updated and rewritten and reposted all the time. I don't see how this would be a problem.

Writers agree with you; we'd like more space to get stuff in. Often, though, editors think differently.

Their philosophy is that people don't have the time to read long stories, whether there is space for them or not. This opinion is shaped by focus groups, which indicate people are more strapped for time.

You are right that stories get re-written and re-posted all the time online. It makes for a lot more work, but I don't mind. I kind of like like the breaking news aspect of it; it reminds me of the old days of journalism, when reporters would rush out of the courtroom to phone in the latest details so their papers could put out extras. Only now, we rush out of the courtroom and call our editors so we can post online updates. As I said, it's a lot more work -- instead of writing one story, we're now writing 5 and 6 stories -- but to me, it's fun.

Still, that doesn't make for longer stories. If you look, you'll notice that online stories are about the same length as print versions. What online does allow for is linking to pdf files of documents, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another member contacted him (I wasn't going to worry about it) and he apparently thought it was common sentiment and not the work of one person... No biggie.

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...