This is exactly right (on Nate Silver’s move to ESPN/ABC):
Another way of thinking about this is: we don’t have a Moneyball for political narratives yet, but if we end up getting one then a lot of the same repeated talking points we get every election cycle (Romney’s got the momentum! There must be invisible missing voters!) may fade to black, and that challenges the attitudes and identities of the more traditional journalists. This may be especially magnified if you think that thew new corridor is someone insulated from inputs outside their self-fulfilling/self-sustaining political narratives.
Sports commentary is pretty stupid, in general, but as annoying as Jon Gruden (for example) is, he does accurately describe the routes being run etc. Likewise for Joe Morgan with a lot of the ins and outs of a typical at bat. You could learn a lot from either of them than you could from Mark Halperin.
Even if baseball is eventually largely reduced to things like on-base percentage and PECOTA, there is a place for someone who understands how a pitcher uses different types of pitches. When it becomes clear that you can predict presidential elections by averaging polls, there’s no place for Candy Crowley to go.
Yatsuno
How is this a negative again?
Omnes Omnibus
How about home? Or away? Those work for me.
MikeJ
With Olbermann’s return to ESPN I eagerly await part III of Aaron Sorkin’s trilogy. Joshua Malina will play Nate Silver.
Shinobi
I have long contended that Journalists are the mortal enemies of Statisticians. Journalists want bullshit, and exiting claims that are very interesting and unique every time. Statisticians want data driven claims, with reasonable caveats, based on stable models. They are constantly working at cross purposes, one to inform and one to entertain.
Also, I want to take info-graphic designers out back and give them a little how’s your father.
(There are certainly some bloggers, and probably SOME journalists who do a good job with polling or science reporting. But for the most part, yikes.)
Spaghetti Lee
Hey now, Jon Gruden has given us the miracle that is Gruden Talk, and I won’t hear a word against him.
Thing is, I think sports is primarily entertainment for everyday people, so I can see why some people (myself included) gripe about advanced metrics that can be somewhat impenetrable to non-math folks like myself. I mean, people complain about pushy narratives in sports coverage, but aren’t narratives kind of the point? If I just wanted to analyze statistics, I’m sure there’s a weighted random number generator out there that I can spend hours with.
Politics is different. It’s not entertainment, at least it shouldn’t be. It has, shall we say, more effect on the world and on people’s lives, and working with the most accurate data available is kind of the point. I guess what I’m saying is I wish Silver had stuck with politics. We need him there.
Keith
Gambling on sports is considerably more common than gambling on politics, so sports analysts (except for maybe Lee Corso) have an interest in being right rather than passing off what they hope will happen as what they think will happen. What kind of gambler wants to watch an analyst who is as wrong as a pundit?
Rock
Well, I’m not sure how this fits, but I don’t think most pundits or “objective” reporters are that interested in accurately predicting anything. I think they like to feel that they influence things. They are the opinion-makers…at least in their minds. It’s pretty obnoxious, but I guess understandable in the sense that everyone wants to feel powerful.
So, I think there’s no place for Candy Crowley to go when no cares what she says anymore. If that happens because everyone listens to Nate Silver instead, I’m fine with that.
MikeJ
@Keith: It’s not just the gambling, but the fact that the outcome is going to be known in a few hours. And then they’re going to play another game again tomorrow. In the US there’s one election anybody pays any attention to every four years. If they had 160 per season people would quickly figure out which reporters were full of shit.
Topic for somebody to expand on: sportswriters who are unashamedly boosters of the home team, but aren’t afraid to say that they need to do some trades to get some pitching.
Violet
The reason the pundits don’t like Nate is that they can see he’s threatening their jobs. Who needs pundits when you’ve got Nate Silver telling you how the election will go? Pundits are superfluous at that point, so why should anyone pay them to spout their opinion. We can go down to a bar and hear a whole room full of people spouting their opinion for free.
They want Nate Silver to go away because he’s stealing their jobs. In other words, their jobs are being outsourced to Nate Silver. Welcome to the future, pundits.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Rock: but I don’t think most pundits or “objective” reporters are that interested in accurately predicting anything. I think they like to feel that they influence things. They are the opinion-makers…at least in their minds.
absolutely– that whole schtick of a few months ago, Brokaw and Woodward explaining to us rubes what gridlock was really about (Obama’s aloofness). I wish the self-satisfied smugness was as painful to those who display it as it is to those of us who have to look at it.
They seem to wind up on Morning Joe.
Spaghetti Lee
@MikeJ:
I think the difference is that in political writing, there’s much more of a concern about conflict of interest and writers being bought. For example, I don’t think Bill Simmons is on the Boston Celtics’ payroll, but with someone like Megan McArdle or Michelle Rhee, for instance, I can’t take their opinions seriously because they’re kind of on the dole of the people whose views they’re promoting. (ETA: Or at least, there’s a strong financial incentive. Bill Simmons doesn’t make more money if the Celtics win the title, but McArdle makes more money if the policies she supports are enacted.)
I also think partisan political writing in general has a lower capacity for self-criticism, sometimes for good reasons (perfect being the enemy of the good and all that) and sometimes not (ego, money, tribalism). A lot of sports blogging and discussion from homer fans (i.e. partisans) is very self-critical. Talk to a Cubs or Mets fan and the overriding theme seems to be “the guys running my team are all idiots, and I’m an even bigger idiot for supporting them.” Yet they keep being fans. Interesting comparison either way.
Thing about homerism in sports, it seems to be either charming, folksy, relatable, and honest, or the biggest fucking scourge in the world of sports, depending on who you ask. The analytical variety of sports fan tends toward the latter, from what I can tell.
? Martin
Eh, it’s a supply/demand problem. Sports commentary has no constraining function on supply – so they write well past the point of idiocy. Cut their column inches/airtime by 95% and they’ll get 95% less stupid.
And that’s really one of the big downsides of the internet. Unlimited supply of airspace means nobody really needs to choose wisely what they say. Politics is no different, though I’m not sure they ever had anything useful to stay in the first place.
MorningtonCrescent
Sports commentary is great. You just have to know where to look.
Eat my goal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZhysyhUL9k
cbear
@Yatsuno:
Sure there is—for the poor bastards that have to keep stocking that media buffet table.
Keith G
What?
Have they never listened to a pre game show?
“Time for the Miller Lite Keys to the Game”
“Well Bud, first off the Tupelo Tossers have to make good contact with the ball”
No shit
? Martin
And I’ve long argued that the real problem with healthcare costs isn’t insurers, but doctors:
This is precisely what the IPAB is designed to stop, if it is allowed to operate. It is something that insurers are powerless to push against – because it’s the AMA, and it’s the pricing that the government approves of. An individual BC/BS can’t push against that very much.
? Martin
@Keith G:
And why is there even a pre-game show?
Keith G
@? Martin: Beats me. Well actually…to sell beer and Cialis.
mclaren
The larger lesson? This is true for much of the activity that goes on in Western societies.
If the statistical frequency of terrorism were properly understood, most of America’s pointless post-9/11 security theater would evaporate, along with the bulk of the breathless news coverage about “terror suspects” (AKA dumb fundmantalist Muslim kids the FBI dupes into some ridiculous entrapment scheme).
If the actual stats on the stock market were properly understood by the general public, the entire investment industry would disappear tomorrow, leaving a dull gray scrum of mutual funds promising no better than a 3% real return.
If the actual stats on battles and military operations were properly grasped by the American public, 80% of the Pentagon’s funding would vanish tomorrow, leaving a coast guard and a modest air force and a national guard.
If the actual stats on illness were correctly understood by the American public (for instance, that the third most common cause of death in America is “iatrogenic illness” — look it up if you don’t know what that word means) well over 85% of America’s current medical-industrial complex would shrivel up and die overnight. (Surveys shows that doctors, when diagnosed with a serious illness, resquest very few procedures and go home to die quietly with their families, because they know the way things really work.)
The vast bulk of the activities in which most Americans engage are, when not useless, counterproductive. Examples includes chiropractic “medicine,” psychotherapy, SATs, realtors, medical device salespeople, fire inspectors, and on and on.
tl;dr: at least 80% of the U.S. economy is the Golgafincham B Ark, consisting of useless professions like “telephone sanitizers.”
Culture of Truth
Sure sports comentary is frequently dumb, but then in its own way, so is…. sports. At least both aspire to greatness in their stupidity.
Political coverage aspires to high-school level snarkness and intentional idiocy. (jaketapper).
Hey at least Candy Crowley called out Mitt Romney in that debate. “Please proceed, Governor.”
Culture of Truth
This morning the guys on ESPN spent an hour arguing over who will have a better year, RGIII, Luck, Wilson or Kapernick. I do not know why they fight over something that hasn’t happened.
Keith G
And one more thing…
I am not certain the Nate Silver et al is even a good development for the general course of democracy.
When its three weeks out from election day the the focus of attention is what it will take to win the Columbus exurbs and the suburban counties north of Philly, we have lost sight to the big picture ideas. It becomes about “small ball”.
MikeJ
@Spaghetti Lee:
One problem with criticizing the home team is that in the end, politics is not a sport. Anything I say about how the Mariners or Red Sox are doing might change what people think of my baseball knowledge, but it won’t affect the outcome of any game. Political coverage is about getting 51% of the people in the bleachers to think the home team must win or a blimp is going to crash into the stadium. What the players do matters less in politics than in sports.
MikeJ
@Culture of Truth:
Because you listened to them do it.
Spaghetti Lee
@Keith G:
Point taken, but big picture ideas and how to effectively implement them usually aren’t front and center during election season, advanced stats or no advanced stats. When it comes to merely predicting outcomes, I’d say Silverism is an objective improvement over “Well, those Columbus exurbs folks are rugged, hardy stock who will never vote Obama because they instinctively distrust big government, I can FEEL IT IN MY GUT.”
karen
The journalists hate Nate Silver because his facts are just that. There’s no agenda driving it. It defies everything they say and with those facts, there goes their narrative. They can’t steer when facts are staring them in the face. They can say they’re fake or phony but they can’t lie about reality.
And that proves that reality and facts are liberal.
NotMax
A little more to it than “averaging the polls.”
Mr. Silver does not make predictions, either. He calculates and offers a running stream of probabilities.
John H
Are you trolling the stat oriented baseball fans with that comment about Joe Morgan? There was a well written blog (fire joe morgan) devoted to lampooning his “halperin-esque insights” as a commentator fwiw
Bubblegum Tate
Ron Jaworski can easily become quite annoying, but I also find his film breakdowns to be very informative.
And yeah, the villagers bitching about how Silver totally destroys their narrative should go eat a bag of dicks and choke on the hairs.
The prophet Nostradumbass
Off topic… an anonymous source (well, a relative) sent me this EXCLUSIVE preview of the first official picture of the royal baby.
Punchy
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m thinking the buffet table.
AnotherBruce
To go totally pendant on your ass, Doug, Silver doesn’t average polls, he aggregates them. It’s a close cut distinction but it’s important. ( I see NotMax has made this point with different verbiage.)
wasabi gasp
Link
Who three?
Chris
@karen:
In the sense that the facts are what they are whether or not that suits the conservative agenda, which what they really mean when they say “liberal,” yes.
The hell of it is that Silver, though he is (I believe) a self-identified liberal, reports the facts just as faithfully when they’re good news for conservatives – he accurately predicted the 2010 sweep and now he’s making noises about how they might win the Senate in 2014. He really doesn’t have a partisan agenda. The fact that they felt the need to squeal “yeah, but he’s a homo and he’s skewing the polls because he’s a liberally biased liberal and you can’t trust these people” when it was plainly obvious that he wasn’t speaks volumes for what their ideology has become.
(Needless to say, the “biased liberal media” didn’t attempt any similar kind of public crucifixion when he was reporting Bad News For Liberals. Which should say a lot about either the extent to which the media is really “liberally biased,” or the intellectual honesty on our side of the aisle, or both. But I don’t expect that to go noticed. Wouldn’t fit the Narrative, it wouldn’t).
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
Speaking of sports, the Reds are stomping the Giants, 11- zip in the 8th.
@wasabi gasp: Who cares? Snappy answer, while it would be interesting to learn.
CaseyL
TV news died a long time ago. There were many perps – Roone Arledge was one, for making TV news into a profit center (TV news was historically a money loser, more of a public service).
But Westmoreland vs. CBS was the real killer.
CBS aired a news special about the fabric of lies behind the Vietnam War, and Westmoreland’s culpability in those lies. Westmoreland sued for libel. The case was settled before it went to a jury, so CBS didn’t “lose.” But TV journalism did: the case scared network brass silly.
Any hard-hitting news analysis is going to piss off powerful, wealthy interests. Any one of them can file a lawsuit against the network, from senior execs to the people who worked on the story, for everything they own or ever will own.
Even if the case has no merit, legal bills pile up. The news organization is disrupted, with everyone scared of what’s going to happen to them, and management looking for scapegoats.
The networks learned their lesson. If all you talk about is personalities and gut feelings, if all you do is report what people say (and take care never to examine the merits of what they say) you avoid controversy.
Well, you avoid the only controversy that matters: the kind that leads to lawsuits.
When Nate Silver talked about probabilities – when he was accurate about how the 2012 Presidential election was never really close – he pissed off a lot of Republicans, including enormously capitalized campaign organizations. I’m sure someone, somewhere, at least played with the idea of suing him, and the NY Times, hoping to blame him for Romney’s loss, on the grounds that he somehow disheartened Republicans from voting.
? Martin
@CaseyL:
Tobacco vs 60 Minutes was probably a lot more influential. CBS could quite potentially have been wiped off the map at the hands of tobacco in that case.
butler
@Keith G: @Keith G:
Which is missing a big point of what Nate’s analysis (and the 50+ years of political science that its based on) is about. He’s not saying what needs to be done to win such and such voters 3 weeks out. 3 weeks out, 99% of those voters are already in the bag one way or the other. The cake is already mixed and in the oven. All the “gut feelings” and “lawn sign counting” from the Dick Morris’s and Wolf Blitzer’s of the world don’t mean squat.
In an ideal world this kind of analysis should be freeing, because instead of the endless hours dedicated to guessing how Soccer Moms and Nascar Dads and Etsy Aunts might vote on this or that trivial issue de jour, the news could potentially discuss, like, actual issues. Or give more attention to the hundreds of other races at all levels which need better coverage. Or really, anything else than more horse race coverage, which the stats show is pointless. And then maybe someday better statistical literacy and political understanding by the populace will end the demand for empty horse race style coverage.
I don’t think any of this will actually happen, but its nice to dream.
Spaghetti Lee
For the record, I actually am kind of surprised, in a bad way, that the Times let him go. He almost turned into a folk hero in 2012, as much as a statistician can be a folk hero. You think the Grey Lady could use the publicity, but I guess Dowd, Brooks, and Friedman’s hurt feelings came first. (Those are the “three high-profile Times political journalists”, i suspect.)
wasabi gasp
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): It’s a juicy nugget. She dropped it, and not accidentally, fingering candy crowlies.
Comrade Luke
I disagree. I think that all Nate Silver has done is introduce a new variable into the process, and eventually The Machine will figure out a way to game his system like they have every other.
Pooh
@MikeJ: he already kinda did
jayackroyd
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yeah, that was my reaction too.
And, yeah, I’m not humor impaired.
Of course, what Milhous really means is “How can they fill the air when nothing has changed?”
Because that was the story of 2012. Nothing changed. When I talked to Sam Wang about his forecasting (he did better than Nate, btw) the election results, he said, first, that it was fun getting up in the morning and seeing what had happened. He didn’t actually do anything–Python-power, you know–but still it was fun. He did just what his readers did in the morning, looked to see what the model was spitting out And he said, second, it was right. His daily news cycle was over.
If that’s what it’s gonna be, how do they fill the air? What are they gonna run around the ads? It’s already hard to distinguish the paid political announcements from the analysis. What if it becomes clear that’s all there is?
jayackroyd
@Keith:
Is there no squawk box in your world? No casinos? In my local papers every “analyst” giving “picks” pretty much steadily loses the vig. Gambling is entertainment. You may need people to reassure you that you are gambling wisely, but that’s oxymoronic. If you’re a good bettor, betting legally, you lose the vig. (Card counting aside, but that proves the rule. You aren’t allowed to play if, even when observing the rules, you can win consistently.)
jayackroyd
@Spaghetti Lee: Yeah, but sports coverage is really PR for a business enterprise. Reporters are given very special access–players and coaches are required to talk to them–in order to get the product, daily, on the editorial side of the paper.
You see this in all the not hard news coverage–the travel section, the film reviews etc. Sports is more interesting because it generates very little direct advertising revenue in newspapers, but it delivers that male under 50 demo everybody wants. Unlike, say, book review sections, which would vanish if publishers didn’t advertise in those sections.
jayackroyd
@Culture of Truth:
Have you noticed the most informative are the guys talking about fantasy pools? The trouble is they’re only really informative if you participate in such pools.
The WHOLE POINT of these games is the outcome is undetermined. Well, and the soap opera–which is really best in baseball, as you watch your player, one more time, swing for that pitch he can’t hit. Or drop another routine fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xBxZGQ1dJk
Doug Milhous J
@John H:
I know he’s awful on stats but he knows the game well in many ways.
RSA
Some very nice insights in this thread!
Politics is different from sports, at least in principle, because what pundits (cf commentators) say has a chance of affecting the outcome. That’s part of what separates Silver and Wang from the rest, aside from accuracy–they’re more interested in modeling what’s happening than inserting their own views into the process.
Baseball is different from a lot of other sports but has some similarities to politics in that there’s a lot of data to be analyzed, which makes it easier to predict outcomes. It’s not surprising that Silver’s predictions about basketball and football aren’t nearly as accurate as about baseball.
I think it’s less the case that people don’t understand statistics than that they don’t understand uncertainty. Joe Scarborough, IIRC, was a classic case in the past election, saying, “Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it’s the same thing.” I suspect a lot of people think this way, that if you can’t perfectly predict the roll of a die, then you don’t know anything at all about the outcome.
Hawes
Joe Morgan? JOE MORGAN?!!
Did you just say something nice about Joe Morgan? I can learn more about baseball from a towel rack than I can from Joe Fucking Morgan. Between Morgan and McCarver you have a powerful argument against the use of statistics by idiots.
carbon dated
@Doug Milhous J: I’m with John H. I felt trolled with the invocation of Joe Morgan. The litany of stupid compiled by Morgan is diverse and sundry and does more harm than good if you want to understand baseball. Like your typical political pundit, Morgan serves to bolster the lazy conventionally wise and perennially wrong.
JVader
Candy can go back to where she has spent most of her life… the all-you-can-eat buffet at Golden Corral or CiCi’s pizza.
Redshirt
@Culture of Truth:
Two reasons.
1. 24 hour sports channels. They’ve got to talk about something.
2. Fantasy Football. This kind of discussion is tailored made for Fantasy Football fans. One should not underestimate the impact Fantasy sports has had on the sports channels.
pseudonymous in nc
Late to this, but Matt Taibbi’s piece from 2004 remains accurate today on the relationship between sport and politics journalism:
Yes, there’s access, and ESPN space-filler, but there’s also a measure of (bullshitty) engagement that, frankly, the pundit and horserace class of political journalists do not want.
Heliopause
I’ve been off the grid for a couple of days and this is probably a 100% dead thread that I stumbled upon, but this statement has got to be bait. Anybody who knows baseball statheads knows that they hate nobody, and I mean nobody like they hate Joe Morgan. With the fire of a thousand suns. Fess up, Doug, was this bait?