» Printable version
5/18/2007
In Pro Football Prospectus 2006, we ran an article by David Lewin that introduced a new system for projecting rookie quarterbacks based on college statistics. As far as we know, this research was the first of its kind. We’ve talked a lot about the college quarterback projection system since then. We feel it is one of the signature pieces of Football Outsiders research, on the same level as DVOA ratings, the third-down rebound theory, and the inconsistency of fumble recovery.
As some of you may know, three weeks ago Gil Brandt wrote an article on NFL.com previewing quarterbacks for the draft. This article contained a section about projecting rookie quarterbacks based on college games started and completion percentage that resembled David Lewin’s research.
Since this article ran on April 26, FO has not commented on the Brandt article publicly. However, it is now three weeks since this article ran. Although our editors at ESPN The Magazine are still trying to settle this matter with NFL.com, we feel that we need to say something before our research is permanently identified with another writer.
We hope that two article excerpts will help people understand why we feel so strongly about this issue, and why there is more to it than coincidence or similarity in concept.
First, these are the first two paragraphs in an article written by Aaron Schatz for the ESPN NFL Draft 2007 magazine. You can find it on page 31, at the start of the section on quarterbacks:
In 1998, the Indianapolis Colts faced one of the most important decisions in franchise history. With the No. 1 overall pick, would they take Manning or Leaf? Peyton proponents argued that he was more mature and accomplished. Leaf backers argued he had the stronger arm and more growth potential. But all the Colts really needed to know was four numbers: Manning started 45 college games, completing 63% of his passes. Leaf started just 24 games, completing 54% of his passes. The future couldn’t be more clear.
It’s true: College statistics really can predict NFL performance. For our 2006 Pro Football Prospectus, we studied 10 years’ worth of drafts and discovered that the greatest indicator of NFL success for QBs taken in the first two rounds is the number of college games they started. Philip Rivers, for one, started 51 games at NC State. Donovan McNabb started 49 college games and Carson Palmer started 45. On the flip side, busts-to-be Joey Harrington (28), Jim Druckenmiller (24), and Akili Smith (19) had relatively little starting experience.
Second, this is the fourth paragraph in an article written by Gil Brandt on NFL.com, posted April 26:
There seem to be two important predictors for success when drafting quarterbacks. One is games started. Peyton Manning started 45 games and completed 63 percent of his passes. Ryan Leaf started 24 games and completed 54 percent of his passes. Philip Rivers started 51, Donovan McNabb 49 and Carson Palmer 45; all three have quarterbacked teams to playoff games. Joey Harrington started 28 games, Jim Druckenmiller 24 and Akili Smith 19. All were first-round picks in the past 10 drafts, two are no longer in the league and Harrington will be playing for his third team in three years.
Readers can come to their own conclusion about what is going on here, but we would like to point out two oddities:
- The third paragraph of the ESPN Draft article, not printed above, talks about college completion percentage as the second predictor of quarterback success. The Brandt article introduces two important predictors for success, and then only addresses one.
- The original ESPN rough draft listed McNabb with 45 starts, because Lewin’s research only used regular-season games. A fact-checker at ESPN added McNabb’s four bowl games, but did not add bowl games to the total for any other quarterback. In the Brandt article, Donovan McNabb is the only quarterback listed with bowl games included as collegiate starts.
posted
5-18-2007 at 11:53 AM by
The Outsiders
||
Ramblings ||
People can say or not say whatever they wish, but it’s pretty clear what transpired here.
:: PackerNation — 5/18/2007 @ 12:03 pm
If this were a college course, Brandt would have received an automatic “F”. Guess he must have gotten some tips from Ron Borges.
:: coltrane23 — 5/18/2007 @ 12:07 pm
Pretty damning stuff.
:: McGayTrain — 5/18/2007 @ 12:10 pm
So, when the Outsiders are being plagerized by the insiders, does this mean you guys have made it?
Good luck in your fight.
:: MCS — 5/18/2007 @ 12:13 pm
damn, I read that article when it was posted and was suspicious without thinking too much about it. Now, side by side, and rereading Brandt, wow! It can hardly be more obvious. Go get ‘em FO!!
(of course, on a selfish note, more publicity about the projection system means that more usually clueless dynasty Fantasy players will have some of the same info that I do!)
:: jimmo — 5/18/2007 @ 12:13 pm
This is flagrant, and it’s frankly sad that the Outsiders have to go through all this crap just because they do their own research and make their own conclusions instead of all just parroting one another.
My respect for big sports media just dropped another notch, if that is even possible.
I just hope this all works out in the end and good luck guys.
:: Crushinator — 5/18/2007 @ 12:15 pm
I read the Brandt article and thought that he might have borrowed the idea, but I had no idea that it was ripped off so blatantly until now. Good luck getting the credit you deserve for this.
:: robopunterjoe — 5/18/2007 @ 12:22 pm
#2 - At the very least. He’d probably get placed on some sort of academic probation.
:: Seth — 5/18/2007 @ 12:22 pm
My apologies to ROBO-PUNTER for failing to change my username back before commenting. I had no intention to…
***CARRIER LOST***
:: White Rose Duelist — 5/18/2007 @ 12:24 pm
This is not the only piece of FO research that has been plagiarized, although it is certainly the highest-profile (the other plagiarists did not write for NFL.com!). I have seen paraphrases-without-attribution of Aaron’s work on predicting fantasy performance of team defenses on a fairly well-known fantasy football site, and I’ve also seen some plagiarism of the numbers regarding 390+ carry seasons for RBs and the likelihood of decline in the ensuing seasons.
:: asg — 5/18/2007 @ 12:26 pm
I read the Brandt article and my first thought was “this guy has been reading FO”. Then when he didn’t acknowledge FO, I was pretty annoyed. I know because FO is connected with FOX, and NFL.com has ties to CBS Sportsline, they might be considered “opponents”, but even rival researchers are required to give credit.
On the other hand, I’m not sure what legal action FO could take. College statistics are in the public domain, and it’s difficult to patent or otherwise protect a mathematical method of analyzing and reducing publically available data (that may change as IP law evolves, but currently algorithms and formulas are unprotectable).
Brandt and NFL.com seem to have clearly violated the implied (and possible explicit) copyright on FO’s work, which protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves, but even pursuing legal action on this front could be difficult because there are no “damages” per se–ESPN might have a case that the Brandt article reduced sales of their magazine, but it seems tenuous to me.
I’m not an IP law expert (I’ve taken some basic courses in it, but am no lawer)…maybe someone more knowledgable could weigh in?
The best possible outcome would be for NFL.com to print a retraction/apology acknowledging FO. Don’t hold your breath, though. NFL has more lawers than ESPN or FO put together.
Glad this was brought to light, at least in this forum, though.
:: MJK — 5/18/2007 @ 12:53 pm
I knew this was going to end badly for Gil as soon as I read his article and noticed that he mentioned two predictors and then only wrote about one. I was like, “wow, that sounds like he took the FO article and didn’t edit it down properly.”
Good luck guys.
:: zip — 5/18/2007 @ 12:58 pm
My unsolicited advice: Punch ‘em in the mouth as hard as you can.
:: Andy — 5/18/2007 @ 1:02 pm
So very rude, and disingenuous.
:: Nathan — 5/18/2007 @ 1:02 pm
#11 - While I wouldn’t presume to speak for the Outsiders, I’d be personally surprised if they sought some kind of legal recourse. It’s on NFL.com to do the right thing, as the Boston Globe did in the wake of the Ron Borges plagiarism incident: Print a public apology as you suggest, and suspend Brandt. Could they really be so arrogant as to *not* do this?
:: Seth — 5/18/2007 @ 1:07 pm
If you can’t prosper honestly, you should at least cheat well. What a dope.
:: The 42nd president — 5/18/2007 @ 1:10 pm
On a related note, Ron Borges is now working for the Globe again.
:: Rich Conley — 5/18/2007 @ 1:11 pm
Really interesting. In my line of work, I occasionally have to go through articles and papers finding matches like this, and when it is this obvious, it is pretty clearly plagiarism.
And considering all Brandt would have to do is write something like “According to Aaron Schatz” before that paragraph, it’s either sloppy or shady.
:: Pacifist Viking — 5/18/2007 @ 1:16 pm
I used this research last season to successfully predict a division title by San Diego, whilst others in my betting pool were turned off by Rivers’ inexperience. I did, however, explain the source of my confidence in Rivers’ pro prospects, and hopefully succeeded in directing a little more traffic this way.
Show no mercy lads! Brandt’s actions are unacceptable.
:: Ryan Mc — 5/18/2007 @ 1:21 pm
TMQ flagged this in his post-draft column.
He credited this to GIl Brandt initially, and then cam this addendum:
“Addendum: After this item ran, I learned that material similar to parts of Brandt’s column previously appeared on the independent Web site FootballOutsiders.com, in the book “Pro Football Prospectus 2006,” and in the publication ESPN NFL Draft. Original research into the relationship between college starts and pro quarterback success was conducted by David Lewin for “Pro Football Prospectus 2006″ and FootballOutsiders.com; analysis was written for ESPN NFL Draft by Aaron Schatz, founder of Football Outsiders. I called Brandt, who said he had not seen their work. In his first career as general manager of the Dallas Cowboys, and in his second career as a sportswriter, Gil Brandt has compiled voluminous statistical research into football and its players, and become an important voice in helping the public understand college and professional gridiron. I can tell you Gil is a kind and generous guy, and repeatedly in his professional life has gone out of his way to help others. Many little-known college players from modest personal backgrounds never would have gotten their chance in the NFL without Brandt, while he has long made himself and his stats files available to writers and broadcasters at their convenience rather than his. But comparison makes clear Brandt should have credited the research in his column to David Lewin and the analysis to Aaron Schatz..
TMQ has it spot on. If Borges (or any other journalist) can’t do this, niether should Gil Brandt.
:: James, London — 5/18/2007 @ 1:25 pm
Re #11 - This is NOT legal advice. First, FO does have a copyright on content, regardless of formalities, at the moment the expression is fixed in a tangible medium, either on a website or on paper. Generally speaking, copyright law does not protect ideas or statistics. But creative arrangements and presentations of ideas can be protected. I like to think of a cookbook as an analogy; you can’t copyright the list of ingredients and steps in a recipe, but you can copyright the pictures of the food on the same page.
FO has every right to be morally outraged by having their novel and innovative research lifted without proper attribution. But the numbers are public domain, and the ideas can’t be copyrighted.
On the plus side, recognition from NFL.com may give FO some free publicity and well-deserved recognition. And the obviousness of Brandt’s copying, combined with FO’s vocal unhappiness with it, reduce NFL.com’s reputation among the people who visit these kinds of sites regularly. Like us.
Keep on keepin’ on, FO. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
:: john — 5/18/2007 @ 1:32 pm
I think it is rather sad that Brandt had to stoop to something so low to add to his own work. To be quite honest I have lost a lot of respect for him due to this.
:: Joe Rowles — 5/18/2007 @ 1:39 pm
I also use the quarterback article when I talk on Denver’s official board and use it to talk about what I think of draft prospects, but I also credit FO when I talk about it. Me and another poster on the bronco boards have pretty much earned a reputation as being FO guys because we credit you guys in our posts so much.
:: Joe Rowles — 5/18/2007 @ 1:43 pm
That sort of behavior is very low. I hope FO gets the appropriate retraction/apology from Brandt/NFL. I do want to congratulate you on the non-confrontational low key approach to solving the problem (waiting three weeks to publicize the dispute), very professional.
:: ChrisS — 5/18/2007 @ 1:52 pm
It seems to me the best thing we can do as readers of this site and as fans of the NFL is to let the league know we are displeased with Brandt’s actions. At the bottom of the help page on NFL.com (linked at my name), they have a “Contact Us” section. There may be a more appropriate address as well. I’d think some respectfully-phrased displeasure from fans might be a worthwhile effort. What do others think?
:: wrmjr — 5/18/2007 @ 1:59 pm
I read Brandt’s piece and thought it was very un-original, but I had no idea! As I was reading I kept expecting FO or DL to be credited at some point. When it didn’t happen I thought Brandt was a hack. Now it looks like he’s a theif…and a hack. Hopefully you’ll be able to get some sort of appology from nfl.com. Good luck guys.
:: Chris G — 5/18/2007 @ 2:13 pm
This kind of thing happened to Bill James in the 80s in baseball. The ‘official’ guys copied lots of his work and techniques without attribution. Hope it works out better for you.
:: Oldcat — 5/18/2007 @ 2:21 pm
If he starts writing about “AUTO_PUNTER” then we will know for sure!
:: Oldcat — 5/18/2007 @ 2:22 pm
It’d be interesting to see the number of people willing to defend NFL.com and Brandt. At least any publicity is good publicity, I think “NFL.com writer Gil Brandt steals work from Pro Football Prospectus 2006″ and “Pro Football Prospectus 2007 for sale now!” is a good marketing juxtaposition.
There’s a reason I read Football Outsiders and never saw this nfl.com article…
:: Fergasun — 5/18/2007 @ 2:23 pm
11: I read the Brandt article and my first thought was “this guy has been reading FO�. Then when he didn’t acknowledge FO, I was pretty annoyed. I know because FO is connected with FOX, and NFL.com has ties to CBS Sportsline, they might be considered “opponents�, but even rival researchers are required to give credit.
FO comments area whipping boy Gregg Easterbrook gives credit whenever he gets a concept from elsewhere.
:: Sophandros — 5/18/2007 @ 2:24 pm
Frankly, I’ve had a bad feeling about Brandt for a long, long, time, going way back to his days as a Cowboys front office guy, and I was never part of the anti-Dallas contingent until Jerry Jones split with Jimmy Johnson, and I left that contingent with the hiring of Parcells.
In other words, I generally had a favorable impression of the organization in the Landry days, but I always got the feeling that Brandt marketed himself as a guru to a greater degree than what his actual contribution was. This incident confirms the feeling. Really shameful, if one assumes that Brandt is capable of shame. The fact that an attribution and apology has not yet been issued indicates to me that Brandt lacks such capacity, and thus it is entirely fair for me to conclude that Brandt is a dishonest jerk without anything approaching a sense of integrity.
Shame on the thief.
:: Will Allen — 5/18/2007 @ 2:31 pm
Here’s the terms for settlement of this matter: the NFL lets FO put the NFL logo on the new Prospectus.
:: Rex Hudler — 5/18/2007 @ 2:34 pm
#32: But if they keep the name abstracted as “Pro Football…” then they can make jokes about Ricky Williams in the CFL.
Congrats for keeping it low-key, FO. It shows a lot of class to get dicked over and not throw a fit.
:: mmm... sacrilicious — 5/18/2007 @ 2:43 pm
Wait wait wait…
Are bowl game starts supposed to count in the formula or not? If not, why not?
(Uh, Gil Brandt is evil, etc.)
:: SJM — 5/18/2007 @ 2:59 pm
I’d like to second john’s comments in #21.
“Morally”, I share the general belief that Brandt’s article was likely derivative and the copying rather shameless. I’m touched by the apparent outrage shown by some commenters, and their belief in the rapidity of harsh punishment that will surely befall this incident. Such has not necessarily been my experience, though perhaps those students all reached the exact same wording as was on the answer key on their own. I also would not rank this as bad as the recent Zaslow-Couric affair on the severity scale.
I was (mildly) surprised to see comments open on this post.
:: NewsToTom — 5/18/2007 @ 3:01 pm
I can’t find the Brandt article on NFL.com. I guess they pulled it?
:: Richie — 5/18/2007 @ 3:11 pm
You know, the pathetic thing is that all he really had to do was insert a line like:
“As discovered by the researchers at Football Outsiders…” and maybe include a link.
It would have done nothing to denigrate his article and it would have given credit where due.
:: David Mazzotta — 5/18/2007 @ 3:23 pm
http://www.nfl.com/help/emailtech
….is where you can send an angry message.
“Fire the plagiarist”, etc…
:: SocioJoe — 5/18/2007 @ 3:37 pm
#37
Since his article was mainly a condensed summary of FO’s work, citing it would have made his article look very weak. It’s not like he was adding any value.
:: zip — 5/18/2007 @ 3:38 pm
#39, isn’t that standard? A writer is writing something, and uses a piece of a larger work to add to HIS comment, not to add to the original work.
:: Richie — 5/18/2007 @ 3:44 pm
Re 37
I often wonder why so many writers get themselves in trouble this way. It’s not illegal, or even looked down upon, to borrow stuff from somewhere else. All you have to do is say where you got it and no one will care. FO probably would have been happy to be cited in an NFL.com article.
What I think is even worse was this bit from the TMQ article –
I called Brandt, who said he had not seen their work.
In other words, he didn’t just have a brainfart and forget to give credit. He’s choosing not to. Someone explain that to me.
:: DrewTS — 5/18/2007 @ 3:46 pm
This is pretty shameful, good luck in getting some justice on this one FO. My pre-order of the next PFP will come as soon as you start selling it.
:: JT — 5/18/2007 @ 3:52 pm
By the way, please keep us posted on how this is resolved.
:: JT — 5/18/2007 @ 3:55 pm
Wow… this is deeply ironic coming on the heels of the NFL’s placing heavy restrictions on how third-party websites are allowed to use NFL audio and video content.
:: J — 5/18/2007 @ 4:01 pm
Re: 20 / Easterbrook
I called Brandt, who said he had not seen their work.
If this is true, I am quite disturbed by the fact that a professional football writer is ignoring Football Outsiders, who are doing the most important work in football analysis that is widely publicly available. If you want to understand football, and, even more so, if you claim to understand football, you should be reading the work of the Outsiders. Period.
Let me suggest one possibility that would cast Brandt in a slightly less negative light: Perhaps Lewin’s ideas have become so pervasive in NFL circles that Brandt obtained the ideas originally developed by Lewin through another source. Then, perhaps a research intern pulled the specific data from Aaron’s article. If that were the case, it’s still lazy. It’s still plagiarism. It’s still bad journalism. But it’s not necessarily as callous as most of us are assuming. Just throwing that out there as a possibility before we all bust out the torches.
By the way, see the link in my name for a brief apology by Brandt to Rick Gosselin for supposedly accidentally borrowing his work. That was published on NFL.com today.
:: CA — 5/18/2007 @ 4:03 pm
#45. It still does not explain why he only list one out of 2 predictors. Either he recognized that it would be too obvious if he lists both or somebody had borrowed his PFP 2006 and he could remember what the last one is all about.
:: MadDogExtra — 5/18/2007 @ 4:14 pm
he could -> “he couldn’t”
:: MadDogExtra — 5/18/2007 @ 4:16 pm
By the way, see the link in my name for a brief apology by Brandt to Rick Gosselin for supposedly accidentally borrowing his work. That was published on NFL.com today.
Wow. That’s bad. That means he published two stories within two days that were based on plagiarism.
Yeah, he “accidentally” used Gosselin’s list. How does that work? He couldn’t tell the difference between his own writing, and a list printed in a newspaper?
:: Richie — 5/18/2007 @ 4:20 pm
#40
I’m saying that he didn’t do anything except regurgitate their work. There is no “HIS Comment” except a summary of FO’s stuff, which is why the cite would make his uselessness apparently to anyone who followed it.
:: zip — 5/18/2007 @ 4:20 pm
Article is missing, (or very hard to find,) and interesting enough, there is an “oops, I’m sorry” article (posted today,) in regards to Brandt accidentaly using someone else’s Top 100 list for a draft article…
:: Wes M — 5/18/2007 @ 4:21 pm
I used to like listening to Brandt on Sirius radio, but now all I’m ever going to think of when I hear him is that everything he says might be parroting somebody else’s original thoughts.
:: Richie — 5/18/2007 @ 4:21 pm
How is the Gil Brandt article hard to find? It’s linked in the FO story above.
:: Pat — 5/18/2007 @ 4:30 pm
“How is the Gil Brandt article hard to find? It’s linked in the FO story above. ”
True, but it isn’t linked on Brandt’s NFL.com index page. You have to go through links along the Draft -> Features -> Analysis -> Brandt (QB)
:: Wes M — 5/18/2007 @ 4:44 pm
And we should be surprised at the disingenuous behavior of a longtime Cowboys employee… why?
Once a Cowboy, always a might-makes-right crook.
:: philly bill — 5/18/2007 @ 4:44 pm
Another possibility, suggested by the Zaslow-Couric affair I noted in #35, is that Brandt didn’t actually produce the content published under his name, but it was produced by someone else, and Brandt then reviewed it and it was posted on NFL.com. In and of itself, this doesn’t strike me as a big deal, though that may be because I frequently for work do similar things. This is a classic agency problem, and the risk/reward tradeoff for the producing party may not seem that great.
The Gosselin confusion is annoying, but it’s just carelessness and thoughtlessness (I’d hope you could remember that yes, this person was on my Top 100 list, or no, he was not). This is a different deal.
:: NewsToTom — 5/18/2007 @ 4:47 pm
It’s one thing to do a soft news commentary piece, and have it published under the byline of a famous “journalist” although the plagiarism is never excusable. It is quite another to put out research-based analysis under the byline of a supposed expert who did not do the analysis. Either way, Brandt is exposed as a fraud.
:: Will Allen — 5/18/2007 @ 4:55 pm
Isn’t Brandt quite an old man? I personally don’t feel right laying into an OAP. He made a mistake and should make some form of atonement but a few of the comments here are a little extreme.
:: Karl Cuba — 5/18/2007 @ 4:59 pm
Like I said, Karl, given that more than three weeks have elapsed, and Brandt has been asked about it, and he still hasn’t made an attribution, I think it is entirely fair to draw some pretty harsh conclusions.
:: Will Allen — 5/18/2007 @ 5:10 pm
Oh, COME ON!!!
I can appreciate (to a certain extent) the issue of Brandt tightly paraphrasing the previous article.
But is anyone seriously contending that the determination that games started and completion percentage is some miraculously original metric that requires attribution? I don’t think it is. It’s an interesting CORRELLATION. There is no CAUSATION here. I don’t think FO can reasonably have any property right (moral, intellectual, or otherwise) in pointing out a correllation.
I understand that in today’s blogosphers, everyone is very protective when they turn a good phrase or come up with an idea they THINK is highly original. Maybe Brandt was lazy, and we should recognize that and take his analysis accordingly.
But the idea that FO has some claim to moral indignation is untenable, as far as I’m concerned.
:: Scot K — 5/18/2007 @ 5:13 pm
Tell ya’ what, Scot; show me somebody prior to Lewin who specifically identified those two particular stats as being the critical two in predicting pro performance, and then it will be fair to say that Brandt was just using ideas that have been part of the common body of knowledge. Until then it is entirely fair to conclude that he is presenting other people’s analytical work as his own. As for indignation, well it is just football, but if I was trying to figure out a way to make a living doing football analysis, and somebody used my work in the way that Brandt had, it’d make me mad. Nothing like dipping into your own wallet to change the intensity of feeling.
:: Will Allen — 5/18/2007 @ 5:26 pm
Oh jeez!!
I can acknowledge (kind of) the problem with Brandt closely quoting the earlier article.
However is anyone sincerely arguing that the conclusion that games started and completion % is some amazingly original standard that demands citation? I don’t think so. It’s a compelling CORRELLATION. There is no CAUSE->EFFECT here. I don’t think Outsiders can seriously have any property right (intellectual, moral or otherwise) in showing a correllation.
I “get” that in today’s tubenets, all are protective when they turn a great point or come up with an idea they BELIEVE is highly innovative. Perhaps Brandt was comatose, and we ought to recognize that and take his analysis as such.
But the concept that FO has claim to moral indignation is ludicrous, as far as someone else is concerned.
:: Plagiarism is Bad. — 5/18/2007 @ 5:30 pm
#60: “But is anyone seriously contending that the determination that games started and completion percentage is some miraculously original metric that requires attribution? I don’t think it is. It’s an interesting CORRELLATION. There is no CAUSATION here. I don’t think FO can reasonably have any property right (moral, intellectual, or otherwise) in pointing out a correllation.”
Why the hell not?! It doesn’t matter whether it’s an example of causation or correlation. The fact that success, starts, and completion percentage are connected in such a way that allows prediction of the first from the other two is definitely original, if only because of its precision. Gil Brandt would not have known about that correlation, or about how strong it is, if not for David Lewin’s research. That means he should’ve cited that research if he was going to use it in an article.
:: QB projection systemjoe — 5/18/2007 @ 5:32 pm
Oops, forgot to change my name back. Ignore that last post. Well, the name anyway.
:: Alex — 5/18/2007 @ 5:36 pm
The answer to this is easy: we should all send angry mail to NFL.com until they do something. I don’t care if I’m sending a daily angry missive to them. The damn article is exactly the same as FO’s and, even if Brandt says he hadn’t seen FO’s article, it was published before his own and, therefore, he should be crediting FO for creating this analysis.
Of course, it’s impossible because Brandt doesn’t have A DAMN MAILBOX. Yeah, pretty easy, Gil, stealing stuff and then not having to answer about it.
In ANY university IN THE WORLD in which I would have presented a thesis statement so similar to another one, I would have been dubbed for plagiarism and expelled immediately. Then again, it’s a common practice these days. Len Pasquarelli has been claiming through his famous phrase “ESPN has learned…” to break out news which have been previously reported by other media outlets (particularly, Sirius Radio has been jobbed several times by him). Ron Borges is another example.
Too sad football journalists can’t be professional journalists.
:: Horacio — 5/18/2007 @ 5:36 pm
re: 59
The fact that there’s correlation or causation in the phenomenon has NOTHING to do with the fact being discussed - namely, that Gil Brandt most likely pulled his article off the ESPN one.
As far as property rights go, it has already been discussed in the thread (see posts 11, 21) that the Outsiders might not have a LEGAL case against the NFL/Brandt. However, it’s still in poor taste (and it shows a lack of journalistic integrity) to so obviously take something out of someone else’s work, and not even mention them as a reference. You can make the case that the variables in question (games started/completion %) and their correlation with NFL success are so simple, in hindsight… yet, the first time we heard about it was when David Lewin brought his research to FO. There’s actual evidence to that (publishing dates of Lewin’s first article, PFP 2006, etc.), so it’s highly careless to dismiss it simply as something that “they [FO] THINK is highly original”, and stating that “the idea that FO has some claim to moral indignation is untenable”.
This is not a matter of IP (at least legally), IMO. This is a matter of integrity, respect, and most of all, good manners. Feel free to think it’s not worth of your attention, but as someone that has published original work of any kind, I am compelled to feel dissapointed of Mr. Brandt, and I hope he does the right thing and gives credit where credit is due (i.e. Aaron Schatz, ESPN NFL Draft 2007, Football Outsiders and/or David Lewin), as he should’ve in the first place.
:: Sergio — 5/18/2007 @ 5:38 pm
Oh, Come On, to you, too.
As noted previously in the thread, legally FO cannot have a copyright in facts or in the idea. What they have is a copyright in the expression of those facts. Your personal feelings (and mine) aside, there is a definite legal issue with Brandt’s chosen expression of the idea.
Perhaps the most interest thing about Lewin’s research is not that experience and completion percentage matter, but within the bounds of the study (1st/2nd round), they are the only things that matter. Given the few variables, this is the more reason to be vigilant when one in particular is in some sense attacked.
And on causation, who cares? Given the nature of the analysis, I don’t see how it could matter.
:: NewsToTom — 5/18/2007 @ 5:40 pm
I think no matter how this particular incident turns out FootballOutsiders is destined to prevail, why? As pointed out, that’s one of an array of useful predictions, and there may well be new predictions coming as well as incrimental improvements to the older ones. Gil Brandt’s already revealed his inability to produce them. Quite frankly, there just aren’t a lot of options for this kind of penetrating insight into the game we love. So, I guess, Thanks.
:: Insancipitory — 5/18/2007 @ 5:45 pm
RE #60
Even IF I conceded that Lewin was the first to PUBLISH the correllation, that wouldn’t justify the implict and explicit condemnation that seems to be so prevalent amongst bloggers.
FO didn’t create the stats from which it’s correllation arose. Rather, FO just opened up a stat book and made an observation. Anyone was free to make the same observation. FO doesn’t have any ownership interest in statistics.
I’m not saying that FO’s indignation is out of touch with the general attitude in the blogosphere. I’m just saying that the general attitude in the blogosphere is pretty ridiculous.
Take a fantasy football example. Someone, somewhere, first observed the correllation in the “Third-Year WR” breakout. Someone was first, and they got it from looking at stats. But you never see fantasy writers “attributing” it to the all knowing guy who first observed it (or rather, wrote about it).
At what point does the “No Sh*t factor” come into play? There is NO logical distinction between my example and the correllation pointed out by Brandt.
:: Scot K — 5/18/2007 @ 5:47 pm
Re #64
In ANY university IN THE WORLD in which I would have presented a thesis statement so similar to another one, I would have been dubbed for plagiarism and expelled immediately.
I wish people would stop reading university press releases without thinking. Yes, some schools are willing to expel students for plagiarism violations, but not all of them, and many offenses more serious than Brandt’s result in nothing worse than a failing grade in the class and/or being placed on academic probation. Judge Posner’s book on this subject is apparently rather decent, and his identification of moral shaming as the proper solution well-chosen in my opinion.
:: NewsToTom — 5/18/2007 @ 5:49 pm
#61: brilliant.
The stealing of what seems to have been a previously undiscovered idea isn’t the only give away. The extremely similar article phrasings (same order lists of same QBs) and the bowl-game anomaly are dead give-aways. He used FO research without attribution. Shouldn’t be thrown in jail, but definitely should apologize with link to FO. Wonder if someone can get PFT on this, they love bashing “real” media. Wait, doesn’t one FO writer have a connection there…? Hmm.
:: JT — 5/18/2007 @ 5:56 pm
RE: 67
I think it’s alright to be indignant when the error has been pointed out and not corrected or paid attention to.
Especially when Brandt uses the exact same quarterbacks as examples, as well as several similar phrasings.
And if it’s such a commonplace thing for everyone to have figured out the facts presented in the articles on FO, why haven’t we seen it more?
:: Sidewards — 5/18/2007 @ 6:02 pm
I don’t think you can dismiss possible causation so easily. The more starts a quarterback has in college, the more faith that player’s coach had in that quarterback from an early stage. That means the quarterback got it, and got it early. And he had the physical skills to start at age 18 or 19. Don’t you think that that kind of aptitude and physical maturity correlates well to success in the NFL?
Completion percentage is another indicator that the quarterback knows what he’s doing, and what he’s supposed to be doing. Being able to communicate with a coach, understand his job, execute it faithfully and consistently … that sounds an awful lot like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, etc., to me.
The fact that the kid played a whole bunch just means you have more data to work with, and more data is always better.
Oh, and I should be clearer about my point earlier. Even if an idea IS novel, it will not be copyrightable. You might, however, think about a patent …
:: john — 5/18/2007 @ 6:07 pm
I just did some research.
1. No QB under four feet tall has ever won the superbowl.
2. No QB over three hundred pounds has ever won more than 50% of his starts in the NFL.
No one has ever done this research in this way before. Clearly, THE critical indicator for success in the NFL is that a QB must be over 4 feet tall and under three hundred pounds.
FIRST!!!!
Thank you. I expect to see attribution in any future publication that suggests height and weight are critical indicators of success for an NFL Quarterback.
:: Scot K — 5/18/2007 @ 6:13 pm
Take a fantasy football example. Someone, somewhere, first observed the correllation in the “Third-Year WR� breakout. Someone was first, and they got it from looking at stats. But you never see fantasy writers “attributing� it to the all knowing guy who first observed it (or rather, wrote about it).
And it may not even be true. Click my name for article.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/articles/wr3.htm
:: Richie — 5/18/2007 @ 6:17 pm
Scot,
If Brandt had just written an article about how QB completion percentage and college starts point to pro success, then things would be fine and I’d buy your “No Sh*t factor” explanation. FO and David Lewin would be entitled to feel smug about noticing, and publishing an article describing, this same correlation a year ahead of the “mainstream media” and nothing more. (Something similar happened when Troy Aikman began publishing his “efficiency scores”, which are fairly similar to, although not as sophisticated as, DVOA. However, this was not a problem because it was clear that “efficiency scores” were NOT derived directly from DVOA, but rather were based on some of the same good ideas but were independently derived and uniquely expressed. Aaron was “smug” that a mainstream media source was following in his footsteps, but there was no moral outrage that Brandt is getting). As several posters have commented, the data is not protected IP, nor is the idea of the manner in which to use the data.
However, what is protected, both legally by copyright law and ethically by journalistic standards regarding plaigarism, is the manner in which an idea about some data is expressed. The fact that Brandt cited the exact same eight QB statistics in the exact same order to elucidate the point, and the fact that the journalistic structure of his prose was eerily similar to FO’s works, indicates a very clear case of plaigarism and a violation of copyright law. In short, he was expressing the same idea that FO had expressed, using the exact same examples in the exact same order, but just with a couple of words changed around. That’s plaigarism and is sufficient to merit failure or explusion at every high school and college in the country.
The fact that the statistics that Brandt cites contain the same randomly introduced irregularity (bowl starts for McNabb) as FO’s statistics serves as evidence that the author of the article (who I will concede is not necessarily Brandt) almost certainly was aware of FO’s work, and yet passed the article off as an original work, which supports the supposition that the plaigarism was intentional, which is even worse (plus it indicates poor and lazy journalism).
And, legally, it is the burden of the infringer to establish prior art. If Brandt was citing an idea that is considered to be well established and worthy of the “No sh*t” clause that you define, then the tone of his article should have so indicated, even if he did not explicitly say something like “it has long been known that completion percentage and college starts point to pro success”. He did nothing of the sort…the tone of his article implies that he is presenting new and original ideas.
:: MJK — 5/18/2007 @ 6:19 pm
Just for the record, Tom Brady only started 25 games at Michigan and had a completion percentage of 62.3% (thanks, UM website). Then again, he was a 6th round pick, so Lewin’s system doesn’t even apply to him.
I think what 30 games correlates to that is the closest thing to causation we have is that the player (i) was good enough to start for the better part of 3 years and (ii) has the physical talent to be drafted highly. The question for me, then, is whether there’s anything magical about 30 games, or whether “started 6 games+ in at least 3 seasons” would be any better. I suspect the answer is that those are not interestingly different, but am too lazy to confirm that suspicion.
:: NewsToTom — 5/18/2007 @ 6:26 pm
Scot,
If I write an article that says
“I’ve figured something novel out. Because no QB under four feet tall has ever won the superbowl, and no QB over three hundred pounds has ever won more than 50% of his starts in the NFL, height and weight are important for QB success”.
Then you can feel free to feel morally outraged at me. That’s essentially what Brandt did. On the other hand, if I wrote:
“The majority of successful NFL QB’s fall within a relatively narrow spectrum of physical characteristics. While there are outliers, such as Doug Flutie succeeding despite his less-than-prototypical-QB height, the QB’s height and weight apparently count for something.”
Well, you could criticize my bad grammar and poor sentence construction, but you would have no case to feel outraged at me stealing your idea. Of course, you are obviously not the first person to consider height and weight as indicators of QB success (I can cite hundreds of scouting reports discussing QB physical characteristics predating your comment, but can you cite an article pre-dating FO’s talking about using starts+completion percentage to predict a QB’s pro career? David Lewin may well be the first media analyst to do so in print). But if you genuinely were the first person to suggest considering height and weight of a QB, and if you had published that material in a publically accessible manner, then I probably would be required to acknowledge you with something like “considering height and weight as indicators of QB success was first proposed by Scot K; however, the conclusions he draws are so general as to be practically useless. However, we can refine this method …” and so forth.
:: MJK — 5/18/2007 @ 6:30 pm
Scot K,
That’s a ridiculous argument and you know it. Your example is completely unlike Lewin’s research. Lewin discovered a high correlation between certain stats and certain other stats which may be a big help in identifying successes and failures in the draft.
You made something up which is probably true, but is utterly useless because it has no practical use. You also did not discover that height and weight are important, since scouts have known that from time immemorial.
Scouts have not known that starts are important (or they wouldn’t keep drafting guys with
:: SJM — 5/18/2007 @ 6:30 pm
MJK;
Yeah, I see what you mean. I think you are probably right that this was lazy writing by either Brandt or an NFL.com flunky who works for him.
But on the other hand, FO has even less of a moral claim to the particular “phrasing” of its article than it does to the “no sh*t” methodology. There is nothing particularly creative, unique, or original about FO’s use of those examples, particularly to the extent that they are undoubtedly the examples that best illustrate the correllation. We aren’t talking about Shakespeare here. There are only so many ways to express an idea in a cogent sentence. No one owns a copyright or any other moral claim on the sentence “The American Flag is Red, White, and Blue,” and I wouldn’t get kicked out of any high school or college in the Country for writing that sentence, despite the fact that it has undoubtedly been published previously.
:: Scot K — 5/18/2007 @ 6:32 pm
[post got cut off]
less that 30 starts so high), and if they did, they did not know that that can be combined with completion % to predict success accurately, and even if they knew all that, they didn’t make it public. Lewin was possibly the first person to discover these things and definitely the first to publish them (and being the first to publish is very important. Ask any researcher).
Brandt “discovered” that starts are a good predictor, and published that well after Lewin and Schatz. That’s fine, except that there are indications that he actually stole their presentation, not just their content. He didn’t coincidentally use the same quarterbacks in the same order with the same copy-edited inconsistency, he copied it.
What I’m saying is that if some jackass wants to write an article claiming that starts are a good predictor for success without giving a citation, that’s fine, but he better not copy the exact style of presentation also.
The only good to come from this is that it will become news which will cause publicity for FO.
:: SJM — 5/18/2007 @ 6:35 pm
Scot K,
You’re still not getting it.
Writing an article about how starts are important, and citing Philip Rivers and Michael Vick, is OK. Writing that same article, and citing the exact same list of QBs in the exact same order is plagiarism if it is not cited.
The McNabb bowl game anomaly is just further proof that the material was lifted directly from someone else’s work. That is the very definition of plagiarism.
:: SJM — 5/18/2007 @ 6:38 pm
Also, I will henceforth be known as “The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly.”
:: The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly (aka SJM) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:41 pm
someone talked about how gil brandt’s plagiarism is ironic considering the nfl’s strictness regarding their own content usage. going off on a tangent on that subject - it’s all about the money baby! there’s an article i read on either espn.com or si.com/nfl (forgot which, is that plagiarism? hehehe) stated that high round draft picks are required to attend a reebok/nfl marketing event even if they miss an OTA. tony dungy called it ‘troubling.’ typical nfl.
:: andy — 5/18/2007 @ 6:43 pm
80 - That’s a great name.
I wonder why ProFootballTalk isn’t all over this. They trash other writers for plagiarism, why not Brandt?
:: Randy S. — 5/18/2007 @ 6:51 pm
SJM;
No, I do get it.
In your post, you cite a “standard” that plagiarism is proven because Brandt cited the exact same QB’s in the exact same order. But you weren’t the first to point out the standard, and you aren’t attributing it. But its okay, because there are certain “ideas” that are well accepted or “obvious” enough to someone that they don’t need attribution. I’m okay with that. You aren’t.
:: Scot K — 5/18/2007 @ 6:53 pm
MJK;
See, now we are just engaged in line drawing, as in “When is an idea so original that it requires attribution, and when is it an obvious correllation that is in the public domain.
Once you start down that road, you are acknowledging that reasonable minds could differ on where the line is drawn. Once you acknowledge that, it takes it out of the realm of the explicit moral outrage that is being expressed on this thread, and the implicit outrage in the FO “acknowledgment” of the issue.
I read Easterbrooks “mea culpa” on this, and his gentle scolding of Gil Brandt, and kinda thought Easterbrook was off base. But I was quite impressed that FO , until today, hadn’t been wringing its hands over this highly debatable instance of “plagiarism.”
:: Scot K — 5/18/2007 @ 7:00 pm
… so, Scot K, if someone were to photocopy the entirety of, say, FO Prospectus 2007 and sell it as their own work, you’d have no problem with that? You wouldn’t call that plagiarism? It’s all just looking at stats and making observations, right?
:: asg — 5/18/2007 @ 7:06 pm
Scot K
The standard definition of plagiarism is “common knowledge” and is a good example of something that does not need to be cited. An exact list and order of QBs used to demonstrate a theory about starts cannot be common knowledge. How can everyone obviously know a certain list in a certain order, with one odd statistical anomaly, used to demonstrate a theory about starts? The concept doesn’t make sense.
You can argue that the importance of starts is common knowledge (though I would dispute it, I admit it’s a defensible position). But you can’t argue that a list and order of QBs is common knowlege.
Again, if Brandt had used a different list and not included the odd McNabb anomaly, then it would not be plagiarism (it would just be bad journalism and unethical). But he made it apparent that his material was lifted.
If I write an article about how the Redskins are poorly managed, then that’s common knowledge. If I write a similar article, but every example I use is the same and in the same order as a similar, previously published Washington Post article by Howard Bryant, then that’s plagiarism. Do you see the difference?
:: The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly (aka SJM) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:10 pm
83, Scot K, you’re illustrating the difference between pedantic and erudite. The summery at the top points it out, everyone reading this thread knows that, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that to be common knowledge of this audiance. In Brandt’s swiping, it’s not perfectly reasonable to assume his audiance was familiar with the source material, in his case, he was might have been counting on the fact that they wouldn’t be.
As for not original or too ‘facty’, google “statistical method” or “statistical process control” on google’s patent search. Be in awe of all those who disagree with you. Of all the variables that consipire to describe a college QB, height, weight, body mass, arm strength, accuracy, surrounding talent, 40 times, pass distribution, likely dozens if not hundreds more, 2 were found that correlate well with NFL success and failure. More over one of them was overlooked and given lesser significance by the world at large. That combination to create a statistical tool, IS new and non-obvious. It’s probably on the order of 1 in 10,000 of possible 2 variable combinations.
Then if that weren’t enough, Brandt didn’t just pick a good idea, a better idea than he’d had, from a less widely known peer, he took that exact same expression of it, adding nothing. It’s the kind of thing that’s just unclassy enough to get one kicked out of San Deigo.
:: Insancipitory — 5/18/2007 @ 7:21 pm
Anyone have any idea what email addresses we should be firing off angry mail to about this issue? Can’t seem to find any email addresses on the nfl.com website.
:: ardak — 5/18/2007 @ 7:29 pm
SJM;
I hear what your saying, but it all depends on context. If Howard Bryant writes an article about how poorly the Redskins are managed, he doesn’t have any proprietary or creative interest in the order in which his examples are listed. Even if you blatantly and intentionally listed the examples in the same order, it’s nothing Bryant should get in a twist over.
With respect to the “examples” you might use to demonstrate poor management, whether the use of the examples constitute’s plagiarism is all a matter of context. If the examples are well known, then Bryant shouldn’t get a moral interest in those examples just because he was the first to publish.
I know alot of people get in a twist when ESPN does it’s “Len Pasquerelli has learned” spiel. But as a Non-Blogger, Non-Journalist, I just don’t care. Trust me - my estimation of Len goes NOWHERE based upon that stuff.
This is not to say that a reporter who gets a “scoop” shouldn’t be given credit, but the endpoint at which that credit must no longer be attributed varies in relation to the difficulty and/or novelty of the information. For example, I think it was right for Woodward and Bernstein to get attribution for facts they discovered … back in 1973.
But at this point, does a journalist still need to attribute them whenever they write about fact that those guys were the first to find? I don’t think anyone can seriously say that’s the case. If it is the case, then ALOT of journalists plagiarize every day.
I just don’t think Lewins research is that so “original” that it deserves a high degree of protection. It probably took him about five minutes to do that research.
Now, if someone tried to pass the DVOA and DPAR methods, and passed them off as their own, FO should call a lawyer. But that is a self-contained methodology that FO spent years creating. It’s not just a compilation of stats, its a particular way of looking at stats, that took years of research and tweaking.
You and I both agree that there is line here, and that the line can be murky. We both agree that Brandt’s work is close to the line. You see it on one side and I see it on the other.
:: Scot K — 5/18/2007 @ 7:36 pm
You could always put this quote on the cover of PFP ‘07:
“The groundbreaking research of the Football Outsiders is simply tremendous. Whenever I want to seem creative or insightful, they’re the first ones I rip off.” - Gil Brandt, NFL.com
If he objects that he didn’t actually say that, you can respond that he didn’t actually make any of the discoveries he presented as his own, either.
In other news, I’ve decided that I’ll be reprinting the game charting stats in PFP, and re-packaging them as my own work. Why not? Granted, I didn’t actually do any of the work, but the possibility existed that I could have. Really, anyone could have - all the games were available to anyone. The fact that I didn’t develop those stats is absolutely no reason that I shouldn’t present them as if I did. After all, there is a certain “no sh*t” factor involved, if you just watch close enough, right?
:: Trogdor — 5/18/2007 @ 7:38 pm
ardak, I used this link to send my complaint:
http://www.nfl.com/help/emailtech
:: Richie — 5/18/2007 @ 7:44 pm
When I saw TMQ bring it up (Brandt’s “innovative” system), I was highly suspicious. Now I’m even moreso.
:: Sid — 5/18/2007 @ 7:46 pm
Scot K,
You are right that after a while, “exclusive” information becomes part of the common domain and does not need to be cited.
However, I think David Lewin would be extremely offended by your suggestion that he cobbled his system together in five minutes. That is simply not the case, and I don’t think there’s a question that nobody besides him, the outsiders, and their readers even knew that it existed prior to the ESPN magazine article in question. (Certainly there is no way that anyone knows his exact formula, because he has never published it. Even if he had or does, that will never become public domain because that aspect of it is clearly his original idea. But that’s just a side point.)
Further, I don’t like your suggestion that the plagiarism line is murky and that I think Brandt is close. Lifting another person’s material is plagiarism, flat and simple. That includes both original research and presentation, and Brandt apparently stole both. I don’t consider Brandt’s article to be “barely plagiarism” or “just over the line.” It just is, and I don’t think there can be and question.
:: The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly (aka SJM) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:06 pm
But at this point, does a journalist still need to attribute them whenever they write about fact that those guys were the first to find? I don’t think anyone can seriously say that’s the case.
Absolutely. In my line of work, I am careful to properly attribute ideas and thoughts first written in the 19th century, and would be censured if I did not.
:: Scott de B. — 5/18/2007 @ 8:11 pm
Scot, you don’t seem to have a good grasp of what plagiarism is.
If Howard Bryant writes an article about how poorly the Redskins are managed, he doesn’t have any proprietary or creative interest in the order in which his examples are listed. Even if you blatantly and intentionally listed the examples in the same order, it’s nothing Bryant should get in a twist over
Yes, he does have a proprietary and creative interest in the order in which his examples are listed, and he should get in a twist over it if someone blatantly and intentionally rips them off. This is the very definition of plagiarism. Listing it as an example of something that is not plagiarism is just wrong. Not a difference of opinion, wrong.
I’ve linked to an article that was on Slate in 1999 about plagiarism that lists a number of examples of Monica Crowley plagiarizing another article in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ published an apology for this. I think if you look at this confirmed example of plagiarism, and compare it to the example above, you’ll see that there is simply no way this is not plagiarism.
:: ABW — 5/18/2007 @ 8:14 pm
I just don’t think Lewins research is that so “original� that it deserves a high degree of protection. It probably took him about five minutes to do that research.
“High degree of protection?” The fact that Brandt used the same list of QBs, and had the same number of games started, which, given the mistake with McNabb, is a signature of the ESPN Draft article), is basic plagiarism.
It would’ve been fine if he had redone the research on his own. But he clearly didn’t. The fact that it’s “simple” research (in your mind) doesn’t change the fact that Brandt didn’t do it.
Look, everyone who’s ever done a study like Lewin’s knows that you make little mistakes, here and there. It happens. One of the nice things, though, is that it ends up being a signature. When you see that signature elsewhere, it’s a clear sign they just flat copied.
I don’t think David, or the guys at FO, would care if Gil had seen the article, said “hey, that’s interesting,” done a brief bit of research himself, and then written an article, but he didn’t. Sports journalists are getting worse and worse about not doing any research/reporting on their own. When crap like this happens, they have to be called on it.
It’s their job to investigate the validity of sources and to be able to provide proof for their statements.
:: Pat — 5/18/2007 @ 8:24 pm
I hear what your saying, but it all depends on context. If Howard Bryant writes an article about how poorly the Redskins are managed, he doesn’t have any proprietary or creative interest in the order in which his examples are listed.
You’re holding plagiarism up to the standards of copyright infringement.
From Wikipedia (and a bazillion other places):
Just because something’s uncopyrightable doesn’t mean you can’t plagiarize it.
:: Pat — 5/18/2007 @ 8:34 pm
41. Exactly. I hate when columnists write columns without any research, reporting, inside information, or special insight. If I see a writer (like Brandt) citing somebody else’s research, I know he’s done some work and is trying to present us with something useful. As I tell my students, it’s a good thing to use borrowed information, as long as you cite it properly.
Scott K: Brandt used the same examples, in the same order. If a student turned in a paper doing this, I would be hard-pressed to be convinced that is coincidence. The ideas may be out there, but they are not usually presented in such a similar and exact order. You really don’t have a reasonable explanation for the specific examples and order used. A teacher might accept that a student comes up with the same conclusions as somebody else; however, if those conclusions are presented in similar ways, the teacher will (rightly) suspect plagiarism and confront the student on it.
64: Probably not expelled, but certainly punished.
:: Pacifist Viking — 5/18/2007 @ 8:40 pm
Yes, scot, the correlation between starts, completion percentage, exclusively, without any other variables worth factoring, and eventual NFL performance, was so obvious that Brandt was the only guy to write of it, except for Lewin. Or something.
:: Will Allen — 5/18/2007 @ 8:45 pm
I bet Brandt reclines his seat on an airplane. Jerk!
:: Andy — 5/18/2007 @ 8:55 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised, Andy. I have more tolerance for inconsiderate twits than I do thieves, however.
:: Will Allen — 5/18/2007 @ 9:02 pm
I can say from experience that Lewin’s research did not take “five minutes.” (credit Scot K.) It takes about that long (ok, maybe not) to even find a single decent NCAA statistics website, decent being one that lists games started. If that stat alone was such a “no Sh*t factor” (credit Scot K.), every NCAA stat site would show it. They don’t.
:: jimmo — 5/18/2007 @ 9:13 pm
Linked in my name, a bit down the page, is an excellent way Brandt should have done things…
:: jimmo — 5/18/2007 @ 9:23 pm
GilBrandt most original of all NFL writers. Gil speaks the Truth and doesn’t need to kiss butt of FO. Brandt on his way to Phoenix in 08. Bet on it!
:: brandtjoe — 5/18/2007 @ 9:30 pm
sorry for the excessive posting, but i just can’t let this go.
Linked in my name is a re-posting of Gil Brandt’s discussion of the 2003 QBs. Not a single mention of starts and/or % being a deciding, “no-sh*t factor” (credit Scot K.). Brandt’s top quality to look for? “the most important quality is to pass exceptionally well.”
Damn, a genius in our midst.
:: jimmo — 5/18/2007 @ 9:36 pm
Re 104; that’s pretty funny….
:: Will Allen — 5/18/2007 @ 9:47 pm
The most definitive conclusion I draw about Scot K’s argument comes from this bit on post 90:
“[…]But as a Non-Blogger, Non-Journalist, I just don’t care.”
That’s exactly the point here, I believe. It’s not that you don’t believe this is plagiarism; it’s that you simply don’t care if it is. Which is fine; it’s your prerrogative. I find it confusing, however, that you try and convince us that this *isn’t* plagiarism, when it’s obvious Brandt took (at the very least) the paragraph mentioned in this page pretty much verbatim. Or can you seriously make a case he didn’t? I would dare to say, even, that you simply can’t discuss whether this is plagiarism or not if you can’t grasp that basic concept. If you can’t accept that Brandt did that (which I, based on your posts, believe you don’t) then the whole discussion is moot.
Just curious, in what line of work are you?
:: Sergio — 5/18/2007 @ 9:49 pm
Linked in my name, a bit down the page, is an excellent way Brandt should have done things…
That link also is an example of why what Brandt did is wrong. The linked poster credited Brandt for the research.
:: Pat — 5/18/2007 @ 9:57 pm
A brief apology: My last name was tagged as a moderation word because we had a problem recently with people posting using my name. I just un-moderated those comments, which explains why references to past posts are now one or two posts off. Back to the book…
:: Aaron Schatz — 5/18/2007 @ 9:59 pm
re: Pat 110, to be fair, he attributed Lewin extensively also. Try googling (sorry, that’s probably copyright infringement) … try searching some combination of “quarterback projection”, Gil Brandt, College starts…. 90% of the results are crediting Brandt. That’s terrible, and further proof that FO has a at least a case for “moral indignation.”
For added emphasis, my name is linked to a copy of Brandt’s 2002 QB preview, another year with a top-of-the-draft debate, and another year where starts or % failed to be featured as importants numbers by Brandt.
:: jimmo — 5/18/2007 @ 10:06 pm
yeah, *important above, minus the “s”. Too many posts
:: jimmo — 5/18/2007 @ 10:08 pm
106: Ha!
On a side note, I’ve always thought that Brandt’s fantasy analysis on NFL.com was totally worthless, written by a guy who had no clue how to gauge fantasy players or give insightful advice beyond “Start Tomlinson this week”. It looked to me like the website couldn’t figure out what to do with him, so they gave him the fantasy column. Fortunately, they now have some more insightful analysis from Fabiano, but for awhile, the offical NFL website had dreadful Brandt fantasy advice.
:: Glenn — 5/18/2007 @ 10:18 pm
In more plagiarist news, RON BORGES HAS JUST RETIRED FROM THE GLOBE.
Link here.
:: Glenn — 5/18/2007 @ 10:31 pm
When I saw TMQ bring it up (Brandt’s “innovative� system), I was highly suspicious. Now I’m even moreso.
Does this mean that TMQ did not even read the book that he is quoted as endorsing on the back cover?
:: Richie — 5/18/2007 @ 10:32 pm
#112: Yes, he did, but if you read it, the author actually is implying that David took Gil’s idea (”40+ starts”) and went further. Which is just a load of crap.
:: Pat — 5/18/2007 @ 10:44 pm
All he had to do is cite Lewin properly in the text? Didn’t any of these so called “experts” go to college?
:: Dr. Evil — 5/18/2007 @ 10:51 pm
yep, right again Pat, #117. I read a little fast the first time. Subsequently, I fired off an email to Terry Pluto (author of the linked piece), complete with FO links, asking him to call out Brandt and properly credit FO/David Lewin.
I encourage all to also use the link Richie posted a couple of times, most recently #93, to send something to NFL.com.
:: jimmo — 5/18/2007 @ 11:01 pm
In #45, I suggested one possibility on how this apparent plagiarism may have occurred somewhat unintentionally. Let me suggest another: Let’s for a moment take Brandt at his word in his apology to Rick Gosselin in the link in my name. Perhaps, similarly, Brandt mistook Lewin’s work and Aaron’s writings for his own. He might have taken virtually word for word notes on Aaron’s ESPN NFL Draft 2007 magazine piece but failed to cite the source in his notes. Later, when preparing his own article, he found the notes and thought that they reflected his own work. If, through speaking with his contacts or independently, he had developed similar, if less specific, ideas already, maybe he could have made such a mistake. If something along those lines happened, then this could be a relatively innocent mistake by an old man whose work has gotten sloppy. I’m just trying my best to give the guy the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps I’m trying too hard.
:: CA — 5/18/2007 @ 11:02 pm
Following up on #120 above, I know that Brandt denies having seen the Outsiders’ work on this topic (which, as I wrote before, if true is a shame in its own right), but I am suggesting that he may be dense enough that he honestly doesn’t realize that he has. Or, as I speculated earlier, somebody else pulled David and Aaron’s info for him and he was unaware of the source.
:: CA — 5/18/2007 @ 11:11 pm
>I just don’t think Lewins research is that so “original� that it deserves a high degree of protection. It probably took him about five minutes to do that research.
Really? Have you read the original article in PFP 2006? You think that could have been done in five minutes? Having a clue in terms of what you’re talking about isn’t really that high on your list of priorities, is it?
:: asg — 5/18/2007 @ 11:13 pm
One more thing, and sorry for the triple post:
Considering that his work is important enough to have been appropriated by the NFL’s official website, by the power vested in me by nobody in particular, I hereby nominate David Lewin for full official Football Outsider status, complete with a Jason Beattie caricature and brown font color in the comments sections. He’s earned it!
:: CA — 5/18/2007 @ 11:25 pm
#120: CA: Honestly, if that’s true - and it could be - Brandt should either retire or hire an intern. That might sound harsh, but if he’s at a stage where he can’t properly attribute sources, he’s no longer fit to be a journalist. It’s a basic fundamental point of journalistic ethics.
The part I really don’t like about all of this is Brandt denying he saw the work elsewhere. He clearly did.
:: Pat — 5/18/2007 @ 11:27 pm
It would probably help to send anyone who you run across that quotes Brandt a polite note explaining what happend.
:: Skeptic — 5/18/2007 @ 11:29 pm
Oh Skeptic, #125, electronically I now belong to a Xavier University BB, posting in a thread titled “The Mormons” (it was in response, believe me), some sort of International political Forum called “Its all Politics” which I’m afraid has now put me under government surveillance, various team sites, DraftSharks, etc… trying to spread the word.
And you know what? Its still taken me less time than it took to find out how many starts this year’s draft class QBs had, prior to Lewin’s 07 update here.
:: jimmo — 5/18/2007 @ 11:46 pm
I think the projection system is pretty original, but lay that point aside. Even if the data is available for anybody to analyze, if you use somebody else’s interpretation of that data, you still must cite it (it has clearly not reached the point of common knowledge). If you do come to that conclusion on your own, then obviously you don’t have to cite it (though if you don’t, you are showing a lack of awareness of other commentary on the subject). However, the presentation clearly signals use of borrowed data.
Compare it to a poem. The poem is there, the words are unchanging, and thus anybody can make any interpretation of the text. However, if you see somebody else mak