Master Index of Archived Threads


Media - Clueless or Brilliant?

Centerfield Jul 24 2006 11:30 AM

I get incredibly frustrated when people in the media talk about how clutch Jeter is, while A-Rod struggles "in these types of situations" when one can simply look up the numbers and see that their performance is identical. Do the media guys not know this? Are they that clueless that they can write articles, run segments, spout on and on about this apparent "truth" without doing some research? Or, do they know all of this? They know that there is no difference between Jeter and A-Rod...they know Benitez is not a choker...but they continue to paint things in that light because it makes for a more interesting story? Admittedly, the truth is kind of boring. Telling people that there is no such thing as "clutch" or "chokers" and that eventually most people balance out toward their career averages is not very compelling at all. Telling people that a leadoff walk is no more likely than a leadoff single to score, makes it harder to place blame on a pitcher. Tough to say...I know some of these guys aren't the brightest in the world, especially the local rag guys, but I find it hard to believe that no one out there knows the truth.

Centerfield Jul 24 2006 11:42 AM

The more I think about it, I think they can never tell the truth on TV. Joe Buck: Hello everyone, along with Tim McCarver and Centerfield, we are live at Shea Stadium for Game 1 of the NLCS. Tim, let's talk about today's pitching matchup. For the Mets, Orlando Hernandez tries to re-capture his past success. McCarver: El Duque has been uneven this year, but New Yorkers know that come October, he becomes a Big Game pitcher who- CF: Excuse me Tim, actually, there's very little evidence to show that El Duque performs any differently in any particular type of situation...and if in fact, there is any discrepancy, it is likely a product of small sample size rather than any ascertainable personality trait. McCarver: Um, ok. But New York fans will remember his incredible performance in the 1998 post-season. Mets fans will be hoping... CF: Actually, Tim, sorry to interrupt again, that was eight years ago. And while Met fans will be hoping for a repeat performance, a handful of starts from nearly a decade ago is hardly a better indicator of tonight's performance than the 30 starts he has made this season, and this season he has been inconsistent with his control. (uncomfortable silence) Joe Buck: Putting aside the pitching for the moment, Tim, tell us how these teams match up against each other. Can the Mets, who rely so much on the home run, have any success here in the post-season? McCarver: Yes, and no, while the Mets power is certainly formidable, to have success in the post-season, the Mets will have to manufacture runs- CF: Actually, again sorry Tim, there's nothing that suggests a team is any less likely to score runs via home runs in the post-season than in any regular season game. McCarver: Yes, but the Mets will be facing more formidable pitching than they have at other points- CF: Actually, history suggests that not only is there no magic formula for winning in the post-season, there is no real good indicator of who will win the series...not even regular season records. In fact, the entire post-season is somewhat of a crapshoot, so although we have 20 minutes of pre-game to fill, we really cannot give you any meaningful analysis. (more uncomfortable silence) CF: I mean, I'm just saying. Joe Buck: And look, there’s Teeny Sitcomstar, from the Fox Hit Series...

Vic Sage Jul 24 2006 11:47 AM

just as the answer to the question of "Sinatra or Mathis" is "Presley", the answer to your question, CF, is Q: "Clueless or Brilliant?" A: "Disinterested" The Media speaks only in story, not in truth. Whatever story is more compelling will be the one that draws the media's attention. "Truth" is complicated, and complexity and ambiguity are avoided at all costs. Its too hard to sell, either because audiences are too stupid, or because the media thinks they are. Its not that reporters or other media types are necessarily "clueless" and can't understand the math (though some certainly are), its more that they just don't care, and have no reason to.

Edgy DC Jul 24 2006 11:48 AM

Actually (I mentioned this last week), Bill James tells me a larger percentage of post-season runs come through the long-ball than during the regular season.

metirish Jul 24 2006 11:49 AM

CF that was brilliant..... EDIT : I'm Jesse, great avatar guys.

SteveJRogers Jul 24 2006 11:50 AM

I don't need stats! I just need my EYES! Thats usually the anti-fantasty baseball/anti-SABR argument when it comes to things such as player ability and "clutchness" Lazy argument no doubt, especially when comparing players of different eras and players that you don't see on an every day basis (not just because he seems to hit the game winning HR every night on SportsCenter highlights, thats for the "Ortiz is more clutch than ARod" crowd) but that is the main argument the pro-Jeter (or again Ortiz depending on who is making the argument) anti-Benitez, anti-ARod folks use to counter who they percieve to be "stat nerds"

ScarletKnight41 Jul 24 2006 12:12 PM

CF - You're still the King! <g>

Willets Point Jul 24 2006 12:12 PM

Centerfield just needs to tap the keys and a thread finds it way to the Featured Archives hall of fame.

MFS62 Jul 24 2006 12:17 PM

It has been called selective memory, but it gets deeper than that. About 25 years ago I worked with someone who, while a student at Notre Dame, developed a mathematical model of a dog. Part of that led him into a model of learning and memory that was applicable to the human brain. From what I remember, he theorized that as we learn things, they first stay in a place in memory for rapid recall (like cache in a computer). Then, as more things are experienced, those memories are pushed farther and farther back into consciousness. If something happens that forces the person to think of them again, they are moved back into "cache". So, in a baseball sense, "clutch" plays are remembered, then pushed back as more games are experienced. But a discussion of "clutch" forces the recall of the situations that the rememberer had filed under "clutch". The same plays are recalled, but not other instances where the player might have failed. Again, selectively remembering certain instances and not remembering the failures that may have put them into perspective. And that seems to be what the writers have done. Follow up. I haven't been in contact with that person since then. But I know that before I worked with him, after graduating from Notre Dame, the person played professional football and received a Law Degree. (insert lawyer joke here) Then, about ten years ago, I learned from someone who works at the FBI that my prior associate was "moving up fast on the "10 Most Wanted" list, but he didn't go into any details about the offense he committed. Later

Johnny Dickshot Jul 24 2006 12:35 PM

Honestly, one problem is that lots of journalists out there are tradition-bound, aspiring only to do exactly what their colleagues or competitors might, just better or first. Many are afraid of appearing "wrong" amongst their colleagues. There's very little reward for standing out.

metirish Jul 24 2006 12:38 PM

That's an interesting way of putting it Dickshot, it amazes me that no matter what NY area paper I read they all seem to write the same stuff, a Heyman bit about Jeter would read like one Klap wrote the previous week and so on.

Elster88 Jul 24 2006 12:45 PM

MFS62 wrote: Then, about ten years ago, I learned from someone who works at the FBI that my prior associate was "moving up fast on the "10 Most Wanted" list, but he didn't go into any details about the offense he committed. Wow. I wonder what number he is now.

KC Jul 24 2006 01:06 PM

There's some scary looking bastids running around this planet ... http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm

seawolf17 Jul 24 2006 01:08 PM

Ooh, we caught the AMW episode about that Jeffs guy a few weeks ago. Freaky.

metirish Jul 24 2006 01:12 PM

All Ten are scumbags but I hope they catch that Goldberg prick soon....his bio makes me sick, interesting that there in no mention of 9/11 in Bin Laden's bio.

TheOldMole Jul 24 2006 01:38 PM

Interesting Op Ed piece in the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/opinion/24gilbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]Times[/url] today about perception and reality, vis-a-vis "who started it?"

Elster88 Jul 24 2006 01:46 PM

]The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer’s finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other’s fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied. The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other’s touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind. Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received. I'm thinking I will never volunteer to participate in a human study. Ever.

Nymr83 Jul 24 2006 01:58 PM

be part of the control group, the pay is the same and they don't do anything to you.

silverdsl Jul 25 2006 07:39 AM

Vic Sage wrote: The Media speaks only in story, not in truth. Whatever story is more compelling will be the one that draws the media's attention. "Truth" is complicated, and complexity and ambiguity are avoided at all costs. Its too hard to sell, either because audiences are too stupid, or because the media thinks they are. Its not that reporters or other media types are necessarily "clueless" and can't understand the math (though some certainly are), its more that they just don't care, and have no reason to. I think there are some that care about the truth and getting it right, but overall it's about selling papers and drawing an audience. I think part of the problem is that not only do some not understand when some things are presented to them that are complex, but also that some in the audience themselves don't care about the truth, particularly if it conflicts with their own beliefs. The media feeds them what they want to see/hear/read.