Turk, I'm with you. They are way ahead of the curve on many issues. (I'm a really old fart, and I enjoy Inside NU every bit as much as this site. These kids are pretty damn good!)
I've had it with Inside NU...
- Thread starter iskaboo
- Start date
I think it is a bad sentence. I also don't think it is what he means. The troublesome word is "effectiveness." Maybe he could have said, "while the goal of every game and every sporting endeavor is winning, there may be other ways of quantifying how good a team really is." Or something to that effect. Again, reading the article it's pretty clear what he's trying to say and if people get so sidetracked by that one sentence that their mind is blown and they can't get further then that is too bad.
it is also a very good primary source of info so it SHOULD be a fan favorite. i got an idea, if someone doesnt like insidenu then dont visit the site and dont talk bad about it unless credit to insidenu for the very good scoop on injuries , etc.
One cant pick and choose. its either a good resource or its not.
most of the fussing seems to be regarding sentence format. give me a break!
Sure there is. Comparisons of Big Ten record versus talent differential. It's already been done several times on sports blogs. Fitz always comes out with a favorable "score". The one exception where he was "about the mean" was after our 2013 and 2014 seasons.
The Pat Goff stuff is all fine and dandy, but it still won't predict where your next shot will land unless you're really close to the cup. The intangibles and other aspects of football that are not easily quantifiable, are like my blasting an air horn or ripping a fart (whichever is louder) while you tee off. It can ruin your game no matter what Freakonomics states. The reasons Northwestern manhandled Nebraska at the LOS in the 2011 game will not be found in Sabermetrics, Freakonomics, or SAS.
Again, for the millionth and hopefully last time, the proponents of advanced stats would have two responses with respect to Nebraska. First is that there will be variability with any small sample size. Second, we may just not yet have all of the proper metrics yet as this "science" is in its infancy. There are people who still think every time a lefty comes up to bat the manager should put in a lefty pitcher despite certain evidence to the contrary that may be supplied by advanced metrics given a particular matchup. Fine. You may be one of those people who just know what they see and don't want to be bothered with this kind of data. Whatever floats your boat.
With regard to golf, you are wrong.
That's not really relevant, when the word journalism shouldn't be remotely associated with those hacks.
Please enlighten us as to why the people at InsideNU are not journalists-- other than the fact that you don't like what they have to say. Seriously, you are out of control.
Journalist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A journalist is a person who collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information. A journalist's work is called journalism. A journalist can work with general issues or specialize in certain issues, however, most journalists tend to specialize, and by cooperating with other journalists produce journals that span many topics.[1]For example, a sports journalist covers news within the world of sports, but this journalist may be a part of a newspaper that covers many different topics.
Personally I was more sidetracked by the assertion that NU is "probably not a top-40 team. They're almost certainly not a top-30 team" like its an indisputable fact based on one advanced stat model
Turk, I actually enjoy a lot of the discussion you promote on here. There is usually decent give and take. If I think you are off your rocker, I usually refrain from participating. What I was calling you out on is the persistent stereotyping of a group of NU fans as Shills or whatever the new word you decide to substitute . The glass half full group is no more "Pollyanna" than the glass half empty group are Negative Ned's. Why do you insist on driving a wedge between NU fans by the name calling? Doesn't everyone want the team to succeed?
Personally, I think we should trade places with University of Washington. They are top 25 in the S&P+, so they are a legitimate top 25 team, whereas NU is not in the top 30. What do you guys think?
Of course, I understand it. It's wrong and it's largely irrelevant to winning in any particular game because it does not measure intangibles that have a huge impact on the outcome! The intangibles and variation are "random" ... my ***! Maybe across all of college football but not for any particular team or game. What don't you understand about that?
I learned the crystalline truth about football and stats back in 1975. It was an amazing epiphany at that time, the stats veil was lifted, and I started collecting box scores and stats of teams that dominated the stats sheet yet lost the game (tossed long ago). Stats analyses are interesting and I might even use them arguing with posters, but stats don't really mean much in football games, or for that matter, series like the Iowa vs Iowa State series. They don't explain why NU shut down Stanford in dominant fashion or why we got blown away by Iowa. To degrade the quality of a team because they don't rack up enough style points, yards, completions, first downs, Sabermetrics or TOP is absurd!
Obviously you can't see the truth. I'd certainly explain past games and seasons using stats when they're useful, and they usually are, but advanced metrics cannot account for things like emotional state, motivational state, film preparation, proper execution and other aspects of football that are important.
Let me know when you call your next hole-in-one.
Yes, thank you for the definition to support my point .The trash on that site by a bunch of students does not qualify.
Since I started this mess, I thought I should weigh in again.
I think Inside NU is a great idea, and I am fully aware and supportive of the fact that it is a site run by students. As a Medill grad (in a different era), I can only applaud their efforts and also realize that this is not a full-time job. I write this with a bit of understanding: After graduating, I worked as a newspaper and magazine journalist for more than 20 years in the US and the UK before taking corporate roles.
I still stand by my original comment: that one sentence -- "But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses." -- was on its face so silly that I did not read the rest of the article carefully. While I am a stat geek in some respects, especially when it comes to baseball and cricket, I have never lost the idea that the purpose of the game -- other than to have fun -- is to win.
I am sure that the players and coaches would prefer the team to be 10-0 than to lead the nation in any statistical category.
Each week, I look at College Football Ranking Composite (http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm); this week NU ranks No. 28. Is this a true reflection of where Northwestern should be ranked in comparison to other teams? Probably not. This comparison captures 107 polls and websites that rank college football teams according to various criteria. Some are very well-founded, and some are likely half-baked. In this week's ranking, the Maas and Mark websites rank NU as No. 10 in the nation; Nutshell ranks us as No. 87! The standard deviation amongst the polls/websites that rank NU is 17.18, the second highest of any of the 128 teams (No. 69 Georgia Tech ranks first with a standard deviation of 18.46).
In short, Northwestern can be regarded as an elite team or a below-average team, depending on which rating service you wish to use. I do not have a great knowledge of statistical analysis, so I have no idea if the S&P+ rankings are any better than any of the 107 rankings compiled by the College Football Ranking Composite. Henry Bushnell chose this ranking for his analysis, which is his prerogative. He could have chosen many others.
Since I started this debate, I wish to point out that I have nothing against Henry Bushnell or any of the students writing for Inside NU. In fact, I applaud them for working as sports journalists while still in school. They should be congratulated. I would like them all to succeed in their chosen career paths. However, as a former newspaper and magazine editor, I would advise Henry to either read his own work more carefully before he posts it or to have someone else critically read/edit it before it goes public. (Henry, if you read this, I would be happy if you sent me a message if you would like to discuss this.)
I do understand what Henry is trying to say, and I defend his right to say it. However, if he writes something stupid, even if it is unintentional, he will (a) turn off some readers, including me, and (b) lose credibility. That's an important lesson for any budding journalist to learn.
I was wrong in saying that Inside NU and Henry has lost my support because that is not true. I still think that what these students are doing is fantastic. No one has to read it; that's our choice. Inside NU can publish whatever its writers wish to write as long as it is not defamatory; that's their choice and their right.
However, I still think that one sentence, no matter what Henry meant to write, was really stupid!
Last edited:
After having gone through this entire thread now, I might turn around and levy the same attack on you. Your one sentence that started it all was "I've had it with InsideNU...." That was a pretty powerful sentence that led one to conclude that this article is part of an overwhelming pattern that makes you want to stop reading the site despite all of the useful information and discussion they provide. After having read your explanation in this latest post, its clear you are not going to stop visiting the site and maybe readers shouldn't overreact to your one original sentence.
As for the article, I thought it was very interesting and it makes sense to me. Any reasonable NU fan knows that we aren't really one of the best 20 teams in the country. Our offense is one-dimensional, our defense is good, but not dominant and our special teams can fluctuate between spectacular and meh. We're winning games, but its been the weirdest season in which watching the games can seem so frustratingly infuriating, but then you look up at the end and realize-- we won again! So... I have no problem with an article that says we're 8-2, but the numbers don't offer us much explanation as to how it happened. If anything, it highlights the beauty of the game... a pick six here, a KOR touchdown there and one devastating QB scramble at just the right time helps you overcome a lot of failed plays.
After having gone through this entire thread now, I might turn around and levy the same attack on you. Your one sentence that started it all was "I've had it with InsideNU...." That was a pretty powerful sentence that led one to conclude that this article is part of an overwhelming pattern that makes you want to stop reading the site despite all of the useful information and discussion they provide. After having read your explanation in this latest post, its clear you are not going to stop visiting the site and maybe readers shouldn't overreact to your one original sentence.
As for the article, I thought it was very interesting and it makes sense to me. Any reasonable NU fan knows that we aren't really one of the best 20 teams in the country. Our offense is one-dimensional, our defense is good, but not dominant and our special teams can fluctuate between spectacular and meh. We're winning games, but its been the weirdest season in which watching the games can seem so frustratingly infuriating, but then you look up at the end and realize-- we won again! So... I have no problem with an article that says we're 8-2, but the numbers don't offer us much explanation as to how it happened. If anything, it highlights the beauty of the game... a pick six here, a KOR touchdown there and one devastating QB scramble at just the right time helps you overcome a lot of failed plays.
I never wrote that I would not read Inside NU; I wrote that "I had it with Inside NU". I read almost anything remotely connected with NU football, even the real dreck. I will likely continue to do so.
I also doubt whether you could label anything I write as "powerful".
My comment was focused on the utter stupidity of the sentence: "But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses." If you wish to conclude from my comment that the article was part of an "overwhelming pattern" of anything, that's your privllege, but I never wrote that.
For the record, I do believe that Inside NU has been overly critical of the team's performances this year, especially considering very few of us thought we would perform so well (no matter what metric you choose, although I will stick to victories). However, I defend Henry's and his colleague's' right to criticize, even if I think that criticism is unwarranted. I was merely pointing out what I believe was a stupid statement that demeans his otherwise good efforts.
And this is not contradictory to the article. The attempt is to look at the aggregate using these stats and not so much one particular game or play. That's why saber metrics work well in baseball-- 162 games so larger sample. Maybe we don't disagree as much as I thought although I find the article an interesting attempt to use stats to evaluate a team and you find it to be BS and dumb.
I'm surprised that a professional writer would really not read the rest of the article based on one early key sentence that is explained as the article goes on and then make sweeping statements about the author and the publication itself. You should know better. That is wholly unfair. I would encourage you to read the whole thing carefully now and see if you can get past that one inartful sentence and rejudge it.
Language is so important in these days of hyper-reaction on the internet and I agree with you that this would have been a far better way to set up what is an interesting, and somewhat controversial, analysis (Sorry, Connelly, Bowling Green is not 43 spots better a team than NU because they score a lot of points!). That's what editors are good for, but much of our current journalism goes out unedited.
Of course metrics can't account for everything. No one but your straw man claims they can. But they add to our knowledge of sports (particularly baseball, but growing in other fields), and that's a good thing. Rather than harping on what everyone acknowledges metrics can't do, open your mind and learn what they can do. Even us older guys can add to our love of sports in new ways.
It's journalism. It's just not very good journalism. The story makes a ton of broad statements off a single statistical ranking, and it pretty much gives away that the author (or authors) have no real idea what they're talking about. Saying one statistical ranking suggests NU has been lucky and perhaps overrated is fair. But the word "shows" appears all over the post, including the subhead. You're drawing from one system to make all of these statements ... and then you crap on your own analysis by saying NU might not be a top 40 team or a top 50 team, but no one here's arguing we're worse than Illinois or Minnesota. The Connelly rankings suggest we are worse than Minnesota, and there are ways to explain that based on how his system hurts teams that play poorly against bad teams, and we have two clunkers in BSU and Purdue. So stick to your guns then!
I hate to anonymously criticize student journalists for the same reasons we should be careful about student-athletes (and writers don't get scholarships either). But this blog post was bad. It reads like the stuff novice political writers produce when they get enamored with polling in the name of "data analysis."
I hate to anonymously criticize student journalists for the same reasons we should be careful about student-athletes (and writers don't get scholarships either). But this blog post was bad. It reads like the stuff novice political writers produce when they get enamored with polling in the name of "data analysis."
Doc, with all due respect, you are missing my point. I have learned through my experience as a journalist/publisher that, to be effective, a writer or publication (in this case Henry Bushnell/Inside NU) must both draw the interest of the reader and establish trust with the reader. My problem with Henry's article was that he made a statement that, in my opinion, was utter nonsense. Because of that, he "turned me off" and, at the time, I did not bother to read the entire article.
I am sure you have done the same thing:
- You begin reading an article;
- You decide, based on what you have read, that the article was not worth the effort; and therefore
- You stop reading it.
I guess what I am trying to say is that you can look at statistics all you want, but at the end of the day won-loss record is the most important statistic. Period. Others on this board agree with me. To say otherwise is, in my mind, silly, but of course that is my opinion and others can criticize it.
Again, I am extremely supportive of what Inside NU is doing, and as I have stated in the past I think Henry is a gifted young journalist. I am pretty sure he is proud of his article, but he probably wishes he could rewrite one sentence.
Nobody, including Henry, is arguing that anything other than won-loss record is the most important statistic. Period.
I agree he probably would have written that one sentence differently.
Just to be clear... my comment directly to you was a bit tongue and cheek. I wasn't trying to overtly criticize you. Just tease a little.....
Thought I would weigh in here. To me the problem is that most of the writers on this site ( especially, Bushnell) are simply not experienced enough to be relevant to this wide of a group. They would probably be great if limited to the student paper. But this article, the recruiting article, and his player evaluation articles are simply "old news"---real old news. When they stick to reporting they are fine, but not sure they have the experience to be taken seriously as analysts. That's why I read their reporting articles and generally skip their analyses.
First off, InsideNU does an excellent job telling the players' stories like they did with Kyle Prater. However, MOST of the time when they're discussing the team's play on the field, the coaching, the game plan... it's negative. It's like posters on here that seem to always have something critical to say. Eventually, I get tired of reading it.
I don't know why InsideNU tends to take the negative spend more frequently. It may be because they feel a need to write stories that analyze the game. They also don't seem like a group of guys that have played much football in their lives... (Granted I haven't either, but I don't host a website where I analyze football). As such, it might be easier to find the flaws in the team rather than the strengths.
After the PSU game, someone linked an article to a PSU writer that broke down the game film, talked about the PSU defensive formation, the lack of a change in that formation, and the play (NU pulling two lineman from right to left) that decimated that defensive set up. That is something that I didn't notice watching the game live, probably would've missed watching the replay (unless the analyst broke it down), and was most likely missed by the writers at InsideNU. They're story is that we almost gave up a lead and we were lucky to win. I disagree. I think PSU has more physical talent, but NU played harder and was better coached. As such, we won in a close game, that wouldn't have been close if the refs were even remotely fair, but I digress.
I think the model is LakeThePost.com. I felt that writer did an excellent job being a FAN SITE. It's intended audience are people that like Northwestern. He did excellent human interest stories: Dan Persa's dad and Brian Peter's relationship with a sick child come to mind. He promoted NU athletics. He was also critical in a fair way.
To me, InsideNU has a negative bias. I find their site to be the easiest way to find Fitz's press conferences. I don't know why, but I like the Hate Week videos. If they have a good human interest piece, I like that too. I don't bother with a single thing that they have to say about football, because outside Nate Williams, they have no idea what they're talking about and Williams has admitted he likes being an ahole. It's incredibly easy to find stats and put spin on them and back up any bias. This NU team is flawed. Finding stats to back up flaws isn't hard.
I don't know why InsideNU tends to take the negative spend more frequently. It may be because they feel a need to write stories that analyze the game. They also don't seem like a group of guys that have played much football in their lives... (Granted I haven't either, but I don't host a website where I analyze football). As such, it might be easier to find the flaws in the team rather than the strengths.
After the PSU game, someone linked an article to a PSU writer that broke down the game film, talked about the PSU defensive formation, the lack of a change in that formation, and the play (NU pulling two lineman from right to left) that decimated that defensive set up. That is something that I didn't notice watching the game live, probably would've missed watching the replay (unless the analyst broke it down), and was most likely missed by the writers at InsideNU. They're story is that we almost gave up a lead and we were lucky to win. I disagree. I think PSU has more physical talent, but NU played harder and was better coached. As such, we won in a close game, that wouldn't have been close if the refs were even remotely fair, but I digress.
I think the model is LakeThePost.com. I felt that writer did an excellent job being a FAN SITE. It's intended audience are people that like Northwestern. He did excellent human interest stories: Dan Persa's dad and Brian Peter's relationship with a sick child come to mind. He promoted NU athletics. He was also critical in a fair way.
To me, InsideNU has a negative bias. I find their site to be the easiest way to find Fitz's press conferences. I don't know why, but I like the Hate Week videos. If they have a good human interest piece, I like that too. I don't bother with a single thing that they have to say about football, because outside Nate Williams, they have no idea what they're talking about and Williams has admitted he likes being an ahole. It's incredibly easy to find stats and put spin on them and back up any bias. This NU team is flawed. Finding stats to back up flaws isn't hard.
Henry Bushnell @HenryBushnell Man, ESPN’s vaunted FPI (Football Power Index) has Northwestern even lower than S&P+ does
12:36 PM - 18 Nov 2015
0 retweets 0 likes
Yup...with 10 teams that are either at or below .500 ahead of us.
Man, ESPN’s vaunted FPI (Football Power Index) has Northwestern even lower than S&P+ does
12:36 PM - 18 Nov 2015
0 retweets 0 likes
Really sucks that we'll have to give those extra wins back at the end of the year and that the team wasn't "truly" good or effective.
I think their Inside the Play series is well done. I never played at a high level, so I appreciate seeing a play broken down like that to realize why it worked so well.
If that's the dumbest thing you've ever read, you don't read much. In fact, you must ignore me because I've certainly written dumber.
I think some of the advanced individual stats have merit, notably the RB stats like Highlight plays and Opportunity Rate, as they help show line performance in the running game. However all in all they are just math trying to work it's way into a game that is not quantifiable.